K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. Satta, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rindani, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-

"18(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in nature of Mandamus for directing the Respondents to immediately give job to the Petitioner on compassionate ground since her elder brother expired without having been appointed in place of his late father."

3. The petitioner seeks direction against respondent Nos.2 to 4 to grant appointment on compassionate ground. She has raised the claim on the ground that she is married daughter of an employee of respondent electricity company who died, while in service, in February 1997.

3.1 The respondent board has not accepted petitioner's demand, inter alia, on the ground that married daughter is not considered dependent of the employee and that therefore, she is not eligible and entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under GSO-295.

3.2 The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said decision and reply of the respondent board. Hence, this petition.

4. The facts involved in present case would demonstrate that the demand raised by the petitioner as well as the petition are not maintainable and do not deserve to be entertained for more than one reasons, the foremost being gross delay.

4.1 A short narration of factual backdrop would demonstrate and justify that the petition and the claim raised thereby are meritless as well as unjustified.

4.2 One Mr. R.M.Parmar was working as C-Sr. Khalasi in Turbine Section with the respondent board.

4.3 He died, while in service, on 9.2.1997.

4.4 The said employee (since deceased) was survived by Smt. Dahiben (widow), Mr. Vijaybhai (son), Ms. Ramilaben (daughter), Ms. Kokilaben (daughter) and Ms. Meenaben (daughter).

4.5 At the time of sad demise of said Mr. Parmar, his son (Mr. Vijaybhai) was, according to the averments in the petition, 17 years old whereas present petitioner, at the relevant time, was 16 years old.

4.6 Somewhere in March 1999, said Mr. Vijay submitted an application to the respondent board and asked for appointment on compassionate ground.

4.7 It is averred that the respondent board, vide its communication dated 3.6.1999, informed said applicant (Mr. Vijay) that his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground is approved in principal, however, his name is maintained on waiting list because the persons whose applications have been approved earlier will have to be accommodated before he could be actually appointed (depending on availability of vacancy).

4.8 Sometime after the board addressed the said letter dated 3.6.1999, said Mr. Vijay, while he was awaiting actual appointment, asked for payment of Rs. 500/- as maintenance compensation.

4.9 It is claimed that the applicable GSO makes provision for such payment.

4.10 It is claimed that while said Mr. Vijay awaited the appointment order, he died in June 2006 (11.6.2006).

4.11 For almost 1 year after death of said Mr. Vijay any member of the family of the deceased employee did not take any step and suddenly after passage of almost 1 year, widow of deceased, (i.e. mother of said Mr. Vijay) and present petitioner, submitted an application (in June 2007) that instead of Mr. Vijay (who died in June 2006) one of the daughters of the deceased employee (i.e. present petitioner) should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, vide letter dated 12.7.2007, present petitioner's mother submitted request (not formal application) to consider case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

4.12 It is pertinent to note that by this time, almost 10 years had passed since sad demise of the employee.

4.13 Further, the daughter (for whom the mother submitted the request) had already got married and had her own family (at her matrimonial house).

4.14 In the said communication dated 12.7.2007, any d