ORDER : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 25/6/2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (circuit sitting at Indore) in O.A No.741/2022. 2. By the said order, the O.A filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that after the death of his father on 05.10.2009 while in service, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment alongwith requisite documents which was rejected by the Respondent no.2 vide order dated 21.08.2012 on the ground being not found indigent by the Circle Relaxation Committee. The petitioner contended that the report of committee has not been attached with impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to prefer representations before the respondents and finally the respondent no.2 rejected his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds vide order dated 18.10.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to clause 12 of Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds dated 09.10.1998 which has been amended in 2012 submitted that there is a mechanism for considering such appointment according to which any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit and decision taken on merit in each case. Therefore, the cases for compassionate appointment is to be decided on merit and cannot be held to be time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, despite having vacant post, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered on merit. Thus, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to rules. 5. The respondents have filed reply raising preliminary objection with regard to delay in filing present original application. The respondents contended that the claim of petitioner was rejected vide |order dated 21.08.2012. Thereafter, he continued to prefer repeated representations before the different authorities and he also filed a complaint dated 23.04.2019 on the PMOPG portal and in response thereto, he was informed that decision of the Circle Relaxation Committee had previously been communicated to him vide letter dated 21.08.2012,04.06.2013, 01.08.2016, 02.09.2016, 09.08.2918, 02.01.2019, 5.03.2019 and 11.04.2019. Despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner again preferred a representation dated 16.10.2021 and in response thereto, he was again informed about the earlier decision of the CRC vide letter dated 18.10.2021. 6. Despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner again preferred a representation dated 16.10.2021 and in response thereto, he was again informed about the earlier decision of the CRC vide letter dated 18.10.2021. 6. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 2012 when his case was rejected but he did not approach this Tribunal period and continued to make repeated representations, which does not give rise to limitation within the prescribed time limit also mere making representation cannot justify the delay. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the facts of the case, it emerges that father of the petitioner died on 05.10.2009. It is not disputed that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered by the CRC in its meeting held on 19.07.2012 and the decision of the CRC was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to prefer repeated representations till 2021 and after the order dated 18.10.2021 was passed by the respondents, the petitioner chose to file the original application. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents also produced the minutes of the meeting of CRC held on 19.07.2012. On perusal of the same, we find that there is no procedural infirmity and since the scope of judicial review is otherwise limited, the court cannot substitute its opinion about the case being deserving or otherwise. 8. Further, admittedly, the deceased has died in 2009 and since then, more than 14 years have passed and family has sustained all these years. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 525, Hon'ble Supreme court has clearly held that appointment on compassionate ground can be considered only if the family is in indigent circumstances and not as a matter of right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following important principle regarding compassionate appointment. "(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following important principle regarding compassionate appointment. "(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground. (ii) The posts in Group 'C’ and 'D’ (formerly classes III and IV)are the lowest pots in non-manual and manual categories andhence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds and‘no other post, i.e., in the Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ category is expected or required to be given for this purpose as it is legally impermissible. (iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to. tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. (iv) Offering a compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible. (v) Neither the qualifications of the applicant (dependent family member) nor the post held by the deceased or medically retired Government servant is relevant. If the applicant finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity. (vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. (vii) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered by an individual functionary on an ad hoc basis”. 9. It is well settled that the appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by family by reasons of death of bread earner. Since the compassionate appointment is not a vested right and same is relative to financial condition and hardship faced by dependents of deceased government servant as a consequence of his death, claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since death of government employee. Since the compassionate appointment is not a vested right and same is relative to financial condition and hardship faced by dependents of deceased government servant as a consequence of his death, claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since death of government employee. Also noted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2012 and the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the aforesaid order was not received by him and continued to approach the respondents and in response to his continuous communication, the respondents vide communication dated 18.10.2021 again informed him about the decision of the CRC, whereas, he has filed the O.A in the year 2022 i.e. after lapse of more than ten years without assigning any plausible reason. It is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal reported in 2000 (2) SLJ SC 89 has observed as under:- “21. Limitation - (1) A tribunal shall not admit an application: (a) In a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made within one year from the date of which such final order has been made, (b) In a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made,within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Xxx XXX XXX (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies he Tribunal, that he had sufficient cause for not making the- application within such period.” Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the O.A. filed by the first respondent Udham Singh Kamal was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed. No application for condonation of delay was filed. In the absence of any application under sub- Section (3) of Section 21 praying for condonation of delay, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to admit and dispose of O.A. on merits. It was, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has totally overlooked the statutory provision contained in Section 21 of the Act and, therefore, impugned order be set aside.” 10. It is also well settled that the repeated representation does not give rise to limitation and also mere making representation cannot justify the delay. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhop Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1992) 3 SCC 136 , has been pleased to observe as under:- 'Inordinate and unexplained delay or latches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner irrespective of the merit of his claim.' 11. Further, in view of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh’s reported in 2006 (7) SCC 350 as well as in the case of State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 and National Institute of Technology Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, 2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 668, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted after a lapse of sufficient time of the death of an employee. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in State of J&K (supra), ‘once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived andsubstantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution’. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.