ORDER : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief: "(i) set aside the endorsement dated 13.02.2024 issued by respondent No.4 (produced as Annexure "U"). (ii) direct the respondents to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The father of the petitioner, late Rame Gowda, was working as a Mechanic Grade-II in Nagamangala Taluk, Belur Sub-Division of Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply company (CESC) under respondent No.3. He passed away leaving behind his family in severe financial crisis. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.03.2006. An endorsement dated 10.03.2006 was issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner was ineligible for the post as he had not attained the age of majority and directed the petitioner to re-submit within a year, after reaching the age of majority. The petitioner was suffering from severe ailments and hence, he was unable to resubmit the application within time. 4. Later, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents. However, respondent No.4 returned the application and documents to the petitioner stating that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered on the ground of delay of seven months in resubmitting the application vide Order dated 03.03.2008. Respondent No.4 issued a communication dated 02.04.2008 to respondent No.2, stating that the petitioner had stated that the delay was on the account of medical issues and brought the same to the attention of respondent No.2 for further action. 5. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Management to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment owing to the dire financial situation faced by him and his family members. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 27.03.2013 declined to consider the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application was resubmitted after a lapse of 1 year, from the date of attaining majority, by placing reliance on the Circular of the year 2011 and issued the impugned endorsement dated 13.02.2024. Hence, this writ petition. 6. The respondents filed a statement of objections, admitting that the father of the petitioner was working in the respondents-Corporation. Hence, this writ petition. 6. The respondents filed a statement of objections, admitting that the father of the petitioner was working in the respondents-Corporation. It is contented that as per the Circular dated 02.05.1997, the applicant should submit an application within one year after attaining the majority, and in the instant case, the petitioner did not submit the application within one year after attaining the majority. 7. It is also contended that the respondent issued a Circular dated 23.09.2011 for processing of applications for compassionate ground appointment and Sub-clause (VII) of Clause 8: "General Instructions" states as follows: "Clause 8: General Instructions (i) x x x (vii) Under no circumstances, the belated applications or applications submitted before attaining the age of majority should be considered." 8. It is contended that the respondents have followed the extant Rules, Regulations and the Circulars, and rightly issued the impugned endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was working in the respondents-Corporation. He died while in service leaving behind the petitioner. As on the date of the death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. After the demise of his father, he has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 10.03.2006 stating that the petitioner was ineligible for the post as he had not attained the age of majority. Hence, directed the petitioner to re- submit within one year after attaining the age of majority. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after attaining the majority, the petitioner was suffering from ailments and hence, could not resubmit the application within one year from the date of attaining majority. The respondents could have accepted the application re-submitted by the petitioner. On the contrary, they declined to accept the application re-submitted by the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds after one year of attaining the majority, however, there is a delay of 7 months in re- submitting the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds after one year of attaining the majority, however, there is a delay of 7 months in re- submitting the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. She submits that as per the Circular dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure 'R3'), the petitioner should have submitted an application within 1 year of attaining the majority and there is a delay in filing the application. She also submits that initially, the endorsement was issued to the petitioner on 10.03.2006 and the petitioner could have resubmitted the application within 1 year from the date of the attaining the majority. But, there is a delay of 7 months in re-submitting the application and for all these years, the petitioner and his family survived. This itself goes to show that there is no financial distress for the petitioner and his family, and hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner was working in the respondents-Corporation. While he was in service, he died leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. As of the date of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and he submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents have issued an endorsement dated 10.03.2006 stating that the petitioner was a minor and was ineligible for appointment to any post on compassionate grounds. Hence, directed the petitioner to resubmit the application within a year after attaining the age of majority. The petitioner attained the age of majority but did not file an application within 1 year after reaching the age of majority. There is a delay of 7 months in re-submitting the application. 15. The respondents have produced a copy of the Circular dated 02.05.1997, which discloses that an application for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be made by an applicant within 1 year from the date of attaining the majority. 16. In the instant case, the petitioner has not submitted the application for appointment on compassionate grounds within the prescribed time. The petitioner went on submitting representations after representations since from 2008. 16. In the instant case, the petitioner has not submitted the application for appointment on compassionate grounds within the prescribed time. The petitioner went on submitting representations after representations since from 2008. Ultimately, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsement on 13.02.2024. 17. From the conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner was not in the need of an employment under the respondents, immediately on reaching the age of majority. Having sustained all these years, at this point in time, it is not open for the petitioner to seek an appointment on compassionate grounds. The object of providing an employment to a legal heir of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds is that the family would not be able to eke any source of livelihood. The legal representative(s) cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and also by way of inheritance. A compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a bonanza. It is not a disbursement of gift. It is a sympathy syndrome. It is meant to provide a minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the family from the sudden financial crisis due to the death of sole bread earner. It is purely on humanitarian consideration. Since from 2006, till the date of filing of the instant writ petition in the year 2024, the petitioner and his family members have survived for all these years. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and another vs. Nanak Chand and another, (2004) 12 SCC 487 wherein it is held that highly belated claim for compassionate appointment would not be maintainable. The petitioners have filed this writ petition after a lapse of 17 years. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and others vs. Anusree K.B. , In Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022, disposed on 30.09.2022 held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed several years after employee’s death as its object is to help family to meet sudden crisis. 20. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and others vs. Anusree K.B. , In Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022, disposed on 30.09.2022 held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed several years after employee’s death as its object is to help family to meet sudden crisis. 20. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and as there is a delay in resubmitting the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, I am of the considered view that the respondents have rightly issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned endorsement. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.