ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, seeking directions for the grant of family pension to Petitioner No.2 along with all consequential arrears and interest, and for quashing the orders dated 12.08.2011 and 26.12.2016 passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The petition also seeks compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.1, consequent to the untimely demise of Shri Mishri Lal, father of Petitioner No.1 and husband of Petitioner No.2. 2.1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 completed the Secondary Examination in 1998 and the Senior Secondary Examination in 2001 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Annexures-1 & 2). He belongs to the Meghwal community, classified as Scheduled Caste, as certified by the Tehsildar, Marwar Junction, District Pali (Annexure-3), and is a domiciliary of Village Dhundhla, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali (Annexure-4). Petitioner No.2 holds a valid Aadhaar card issued by the Government of India (Annexure-5). 2.2. The deceased government employee, Shri Mishri Lal, was appointed as Teacher Grade III at Government Primary School, Chenda, Panchayat Samiti Rohat, District Pali, on 23.08.1980, and subsequently served at Government Upper Primary School, Novi, Panchayat Samiti Sumerpur, District Pali until his death on 11.05.1984 (Annexures-6 to 8). Petitioner No.1 was only four years old at the time of his father’s demise. 2.3. Petitioner No.1 completed his B.A. degree in 2005 from M.D.S. University, Ajmer (Annexure-9), and applied for compassionate appointment on 30.01.2005. The initial application could not be processed due to procedural deficiencies. Following communication from the District Education Officer regarding such deficiencies (Annexure-13), the petitioners submitted complete documents on 13.10.2014 (Annexure-12). 2.4. The respondents rejected the petitioners’ application for compassionate appointment by orders dated 12.08.2011 and 26.12.2016 (Annexures-15 & 16), citing short service of the deceased and delayed submission of the application. The petitioners also seek release of family pension, a recurring entitlement, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it was recognized that the cause of action for family pension persists until statutory benefits are granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no independent source of income and are facing severe financial hardship, having been entirely dependent on the salary of the deceased employee. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it was recognized that the cause of action for family pension persists until statutory benefits are granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no independent source of income and are facing severe financial hardship, having been entirely dependent on the salary of the deceased employee. The untimely demise of Shri Mishri Lal imposed the entire burden of family maintenance on the petitioners, who are incapable of sustaining themselves independently. Counsel emphasized that compassionate appointment is designed to provide financial succor and social protection to bereaved families, and that the petitioners’ economic condition is demonstrably insufficient to subsist without such intervention. It was further submitted that the deceased had been continuously in service until his death, thereby entitling Petitioner No.2 to family pension and Petitioner No.1 to compassionate appointment as a measure of social justice. Counsel urged that no other efficacious or speedy remedy was available, making invocation of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 both necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Court may direct the respondents to grant family pension with arrears and interest, quash and set aside the orders dated 12.08.2011 and 26.12.2016, direct compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.1, and award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners had approached the authorities for compassionate appointment after an inordinate delay, without any plausible justification. Considering Petitioner No.1’s date of birth as 16.10.1980, he attained majority in 1998 and could have submitted the application at that time; however, the application was filed only in 2014–15, reflecting an inexcusable delay of nearly sixteen years from majority and thirty years from the date of the father’s demise. Counsel emphasized that the rejection order dated 26.12.2016 explicitly recorded that the delay was not condonable. Despite being aware of this, the petitioners filed the present writ petition after approximately two years, rendering it unsustainable. While acknowledging that no statutory limitation exists for filing a writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it was submitted that settled jurisprudence mandates filing within a reasonable time, which has manifestly not been observed. Consequently, the learned counsel urged that the writ petition is barred by delay, lacks maintainability, and is liable to be dismissed. 5. While acknowledging that no statutory limitation exists for filing a writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it was submitted that settled jurisprudence mandates filing within a reasonable time, which has manifestly not been observed. Consequently, the learned counsel urged that the writ petition is barred by delay, lacks maintainability, and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as material placed on record. 6. On a meticulous perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased government employee, Shri Mishri Lal, was initially appointed as Teacher Grade III on 23.08.1980 and remained in continuous service until his untimely demise on 11.05.1984. At the time of his death, Petitioner No.1 was only four years old, rendering him entirely dependent on the sustenance provided by the deceased. The family, comprising Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, has had no independent means of livelihood and has endured prolonged economic adversity since the demise of the sole breadwinner. The absence of any regular source of income has subjected the petitioners to acute financial hardship, compelling them to subsist under circumstances of sustained economic vulnerability. 6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly contended that Petitioner No.2 is statutorily entitled to family pension, a recurring and subsisting right, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it was held that the cause of action for family pension continues unabated until the statutory entitlement is disbursed. It is manifest that despite procedural delays occasioned by illness, the necessity of assembling requisite documentation, and other bona fide impediments, the petitioners’ claim to family pension remains legitimate and exigent. The undue delay in approach, under these circumstances, is neither attributable to negligence nor mala fide conduct on the part of the petitioners, and warrants judicial leniency in the interest of justice and equity. 6.2. Conversely, with regard to the claim for compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.1, the Court notes that the application was submitted with a protracted delay spanning several decades approximately sixteen years from the date Petitioner No.1 attained majority, and nearly thirty years from the demise of the deceased employee. While the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to mitigate the financial adversities of bereaved families, it presupposes procedural diligence and reasonable promptitude. While the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to mitigate the financial adversities of bereaved families, it presupposes procedural diligence and reasonable promptitude. The extraordinary lapse of time in the present case renders the claim legally unsustainable and, in the eyes of law, barred by laches. The principle of equity, coupled with settled statutory and administrative norms, dictates that belated claims of such magnitude cannot be entertained, notwithstanding the compelling socio-economic circumstances of the petitioners. 6.3. The Court is cognizant that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial succor to families bereaved by the untimely death of the sole breadwinner. However, the petitioners’ prolonged inaction has vitiated the temporal efficacy of this relief. It is a cardinal principle of administrative jurisprudence that procedural promptitude is essential to maintain the integrity of statutory schemes, particularly those involving employment and appointments, and inordinate delay undermines the rationale of such schemes. 6.4. Having weighed the submissions, examined the material on record, and considered the competing contentions, the Court is persuaded that while the claim for compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is manifestly barred by laches, the claim for family pension of Petitioner No.2 is meritorious, statutory, and exigent. Equity, justice, and statutory provisions converge to require immediate disbursement of family pension along with arrears. To obviate further prejudice arising from procedural delay, the Court directs the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all delayed pensionary dues, calculated from the respective dates they became due until actual realization. 6.5. In sum, the Court recognizes the unfortunate plight of the petitioners, and while it cannot condone the prolonged delay in seeking compassionate appointment, it finds compelling grounds to protect the statutory and subsisting rights of Petitioner No.2 to family pension. This approach harmonizes the dual imperatives of adherence to procedural norms and safeguarding the constitutional and statutory entitlements of dependent family members of deceased government employees. 7. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to effect payment of family pension to Petitioner No.2, along with arrears and interest at 6% per annum, forthwith. Failure to comply shall render the dues enforceable as if decreed by this Court. 7.1. The prayer for compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is dismissed. 7.2. Respondents shall comply with this direction within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failure to comply shall render the dues enforceable as if decreed by this Court. 7.1. The prayer for compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.1 is dismissed. 7.2. Respondents shall comply with this direction within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court for execution. No order as to costs. 7.3. The stay petition stands disposed of.