JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment and also for the retiral benefits. 2. Admittedly, father of the petitioner died on 04.09.2003. 3. This is the first round of litigation. The petitioner did not approach this Court for more than 18 years, as the writ petition was filed in the year 2021. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 , in para-29, while dealing with real object of offering compassionate appointment has held that it is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered. It is necessary to quote the said para as hereunder:- “2 9. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in- harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in- harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand- to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.” Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave weightage to the fact that the financial situation of the deceased employee’s family must be assessed. Paragraph 44 of the judgment quoted hereunder:- “44. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.” Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave weightage to the fact that the financial situation of the deceased employee’s family must be assessed. Paragraph 44 of the judgment quoted hereunder:- “44. As pertinently held in B. Kishore (supra), indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Also, judicial decisions abound that in deciding a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, the financial situation of the deceased employee’s family must be assessed. In a situation otherwise, the purpose of the scheme may be undermined; without this evaluation, any dependent of an employee who dies while in service might claim a right to employment as if it is heritable.” Further, so far as delay is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-11 (j), of the aforesaid judgment, held as hereunder:- “11. j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar].” 5. Though in this case, the petitioner had applied immediately after the death but the matter was rejected and vide Communication dated 16.02.2016, the petitioner was informed that since there was inter-se dispute between the family members, the compassionate appointment was not granted. This suggests that at least in February, 2016, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that the compassionate appointment application of the petitioner was not considered. He never approached this Court nor did avail any remedy, rather reached this Court only in the year 2021. 6. Today, we are in the year 2025. This suggests that at least in February, 2016, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that the compassionate appointment application of the petitioner was not considered. He never approached this Court nor did avail any remedy, rather reached this Court only in the year 2021. 6. Today, we are in the year 2025. More than 20 years have elapsed. The family of the deceased have survived this long 20 years and have sustained. 7. Thus, considering the aforesaid fact and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court, I am not inclined to pass any order directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, thus, the claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected. So far as retiral benefit is concerned, I direct the Chief Manager, (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, to pass an appropriate order to ensure that the death-cum-retiral benefit of the deceased - late Baleshwar Prasad, be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased / nominees as the case may be, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to fulfilment of the other formalities by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of