JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner’s mother, who was serving as Senior Teacher (Science) with the respondents. The petitioner contends that the family suffered financial hardship upon the demise of the deceased employee and that the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Smt. Bharti Jagarwal, mother of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Senior Teacher (Science) in a Government Senior Secondary School at Sanod, Nasirabad, District Ajmer. However, she expired on 11.11.2007 while in service in an incident of dowry death. At the time of death of mother of the petitioner, he was aged about 2 years only.

3. After death of petitioner's mother, FIR No. 167/2007 was lodged and father of the petitioner was prosecuted and taken into judicial custody. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken under guardianship by his maternal grandfather and the petitioner remained under care, custody and guardianship of his maternal grandfather. Vide letter dated 17.12.2007, Respondent No. 5 required maternal grandfather to submit an application for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, maternal grandfather submitted an application dated 15.01.2008 along with an affidavit stating that since the petitioner was minor, therefore, his rights for compassionate appointment be preserved till the date of attaining majority. However, the said application came to be dismissed vide letter dated 28.07.2008 by Respondent No. 5.

4. Upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.03.2024 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in declining benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjustified, unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the compassionate appointment rules entitles the petitioner for compassionate appointment for saving the family of deceased employee from starvation, there is no justification in not providing the same to the petitioner, dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition as also issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.

6. Perusal of the material on record would reveal that claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined by the respondents for the reason that in the absence of relaxation order, the relief of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground is hopelessly barred by time.

7. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 11.11.2007 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that no immediate claim for compassionate appointment was pursued and the present writ petition has been instituted after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.

8. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be sustained after a long and unexplained delay and whether such a claim survives the settled legal principles governing compassionate appointment under public service jurisprudence.

9. At the outset, it must be reiterated that compassionate appointm