1. The orders of rejection dated 22.11.2016 and 28.3.2017, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The father of the writ petitioner late Shri Ravi was employed in the respondent-Corporation and died on 14.8.2002, while he was in service.

3. However, the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the application seeking compassionate appointment was preferred by the writ petitioner only on 15.6.2016. Thus, there is an enormous delay in filing the application itself. In fact, there is a delay of about 14 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, in filing the application, seeking compassionate appointment.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the deceased employee had two wives and the writ petitioner was a minor at the time of death of the deceased employee. Thus, there is a delay in filing the application.

5. May that it be.

6. This Court is of an opinion that the very application itself is submitted on 15.6.2016, i.e., after a lapse of about 14 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, which occurred on 14.8.2002.

7. Compassionate appointment, being a Special Scheme, has to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Scheme. This, apart, now after the lapse of about 16 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be granted.

8. On perusal of the orders impugned in this writ petition, it is stated that the writ petitioner has not submitted the application, seeking compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. Further, the writ petitioner during the relevant point of time was a minor and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered.

9. However, this Court has to consider the legal principles in the matter of extending the benefit of the Scheme of compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment, being an exception, cannot be extended in a routine manner and administration of the Scheme to be adhered to strictly and without any deviation. Compassionate appointment, being a special Scheme, cannot be stretched out further, so as to provide appointment after a lapse of many years from the date of death of the deceased employee. In the case on hand, the deceased employee passed away on 14.8.2002. Thus, after a lapse of about 16 years, the question of providing compassionate appointment does not arise at all.

10. This Court is of the opinion that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is to be construed as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and therefore does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. A compassionate appointment scheme is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the claimant to be enforced through a writ proceeding. A compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succor to the deceased employee. Mere death of a Government employee in his harness, it does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.

11. The concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the e