[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4256/2008 SMT. MOOLI DEVI & ANR. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & ORS. Date: 12.09.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajendra Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. **** By way of this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 Babloo Sharma, who is son of deceased Banwari Lal who was driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and expired on 29.09.1982. It is submitted that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner No.2 was only about 5 months of age and petitioner No.1 Smt. Mooli Devi, the wife of the deceased was not in a position to do any job, therefore, on attaining the age of majority the petitioner No.2 submitted an application before the respondents for providing him compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father, but vide letter dated 29.08.2003, the Deputy General Manager (Admn.), RSRTC, Jaipur rejected the application of the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was submitted after a great delay of 21 years whereas as per the rules the application was [2] required to be submitted within a period of six months from the date of death of his father. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and gone through the averments made in the writ petition and considered the documents annexed thereto. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana And Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, in para No. 6 has held as under:- “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the father of the petitioner No.2 died in the year 1982, therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana And Others (supra), after such a belated stage, no such direction for appointment on compassionate ground can be given. This Court do not find any merit in the writ petition. [3] In the result, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/