P.V. Asha, J.

Appellant claims compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Gangadharan who was working as Peon in the school of the 4th respondent. The death occurred on 6.3.1980 while he was in service. Producing Exts. P1 to P3, appellant submits that his brother had filed application for compassionate appointment immediately after he attained majority in the year 1993. But the management has denied receipt of any such application. Exts. P1 to P3 are letters of the grandfather of petitioner addressed to the Director of Public Instruction, during 1993-95, requesting for employment for his brother, under the dying in harness scheme. Admittedly, appellant has submitted his application only in the year 2006, though he attained majority in the year 1998. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition seeing that the appellant chose to submit application only in the year 2006, i.e., 8 years after he attained majority. The death of father occurred in the year 1980 and the Government orders relating to compassionate appointment were issued on 24.5.1999. Petitioner did not care to submit his application within 3 years of attaining majority. The reason stated is that application of his brother was pending, for which, there is no evidence.

2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

3. It is seen that the appellant's father died while in service as Peon in the year 1980. Appellant's claim that his brother had submitted application before the educational authorities and the same was pending cannot be accepted. The case of the management is that they have not received any application as claimed, except from petitioner. At any rate, it is seen that the appellant attained majority in the year 1995; but he has chosen to submit application only in the year 2006. Though there is a statutory provision for claiming and granting appointment in the dying in harness scheme, under Rule 9A of Chapter XXIVA of KER, it does not mean that appointment can be claimed or granted at any time. In this case, 35 years elapsed from the date of death of the appellant's father. Even though there is a statutory provision i.e. Rule 9A of Chapter XXIVA of KER, which provides for appointment to dependents of non-teaching staff of aided Schools, appellant cannot claim the same at any time. The purpose of such a provision is to provide a solace to the family which is in penury on account of sudden loss of the breadwinner. It cannot be said that appointment claimed can be processed at this distance of time. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in Unnikrishnan Vs. Manager, C.A.H.S., (2010) 1 ILR (Ker) 193 and contended that the Manager has got a statutory duty to give employment to the dependent of the teacher/non-teaching staff died while in service. But we find that the said judgment no longer holds the field after the Apex Court rendered the judgment in Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2665. This Court had, in Deepak v. Secretary, General Education Department 2002 (3) KLT 388 : LNIND 2001 KER 450, while considering a case where the application for appointment under Rule 5IB of chapter XIVA KER was made on 5.1.1999 where the teacher died on 7.2.1978, after discussing provisions contained in KER relating to compassionate appointment and a large number of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court relating to compassionate appointment till that time, held as follows:

“6. xxxxxxx

We are of the view if an application is made for compassionate appointment, there must be some proximity between the date of death as well as the date of application. The object of compassionate appointment, as the Apex Court observed, is to tide over the sudden financial crisis resulting due to the death of the breadearner. It is not as if on the death of an employee, claim of the dependant is kept open for ever. Once a dependant is not always a dep