S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10722/2009 Khoom Das Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 14.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Girish Sankhala,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that his father (by adoption of petitioner) who was employee of respondent died on 11.02.1999. The petitioner was adopted on 28.09.1988 and after death of his adoptive father and the deed was got registered on 10.03.1999; i.e., after about 11 years from date of alleged adoption. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was refused in November 1999. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the rejection of petitioner's claim because of non registration of the adoption deed was absolutely illegal which is clear from the judgement of this Court delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 3784/2004-Narayan Singh Vs State of Raj. & Ors. decided on 2.01.2007. For delay of ten years, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner but petitioner went on submitting the representation which have not been respond by the respondents and therefore, in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Kashyap Vs. Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner & Ors reported in 2009 Western Law cases (UC) page 333, the petition may not be dismissed on the ground of delay. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is provided because of the likely hardship which may occur to the family members due to the death of the employee. The petitioner was denied appointment by order dated 11 November 1999 as per the petitioner himself and it is not a case where petitioner's claim has not been decided by the respondents. In the case of Raj Kumar Kashyap(supra), the petitioner's application was not decided by the respondent therefore, it was held that delay was not on the part of the petitioner and therefore, delay was condoned, which is not a case here. So far as legality and illegality of the order is concerned that can be examined provided it is challenged in time and the petitioner, who and his family could carry on for more than ten years without employment, cannot claim benefit of such beneficial legislation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. Bharti/-