IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1149/2007 Decided on:25.8. 2009 ________________________________________________ Vivek Upadhyay. …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. ________________________________________________________ The petitioner’s father died in harness on 3.6.1998. He was working as a Postal Assistant in the respondent-department. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 5.9.2000. The case of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P-4 on 21.9.2000. He approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1056/HP/2001. The same was rejected by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 1.7.2002. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the retrial 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 benefits paid to the widow of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the family pension of Rs. 3,817/- paid to the widow. The present petition has been filed after a gap of five years after the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 1.7.2002. The petitioner has not explained the delay in filing the present petition. It is settled law by now that appointment on compassionate grounds is provided to mitigate the circumstances prevailing at the time of the death of the bread earner. The petitioner ought to have approached this Court immediately after the rejection of his case by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2002. The petitioner’s father has died on 30.6.1998. The circumstances have changed between 1998 till date. In these circumstances, the Court cannot issue any directions to consider the case of the petitioner after a lapse of eleven years. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 25.8.2009. *awasthi*