THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16134 of 2009 ORDER: The father of the petitioner was employed in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. He was removed from service in the year 1983. I.D.No.71 of 1988 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. Through an award, dated 04.06.1993, the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the father of the petitioner. The respondents filed W.P.No.2363 of 1994 and this Court suspended the award of the Tribunal. During the pendency of that writ petition, the father of the petitioner died. The petitioner made an effort to seek employment on compassionate grounds. The respondents took the view that since the employee was not in service by the time he died, the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18408 of 1996. Both the writ petitions were disposed of through a common order, dated 22.04.2004. W.P.No.2363 of 1994 was dismissed and W.P.No.18408 of 1996 was disposed of with observation, that the petitioner cannot claim employment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right and directed that it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation and that the respondents shall consider the same on its own merits. The petitioner made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 02.09.2008. The respondents addressed a letter, dated 08.07.2009, informing the petitioner that the application submitted by him cannot be acted upon, since it is made four years after the death of his father. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Time and again, the Courts expressed the view that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a facility created by the employers to enable the family of the deceased employees to tide over the difficulties caused on account of untimely death of the breadwinner of the family. The entitlement of the dependent of the deceased employee would depend upon the financial condition of the family as well as the terminal benefits that would be extended by the employer. In all the schemes providing for employment on compassionate grounds, the uniform condition is that an application for this purpose shall be made within one year from the date of death of the employee or the date of attaining the age of majority in case the dependent is a minor. The reason is that if the family is able to withstand the difficulties for a period of one year, it may not need any special help or treatment. It is no doubt true that there was some uncertainty as to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim the benefit on the ground that his father was not in employment by the time he died. The controversy in this regard came to rest with the disposal of the two writ petitions on 22.04.2004. The petitioner was required to make a representation immediately. In case any previous representation was pending, he ought to have brought the same to the notice of the respondents soon after the disposal of the writ petitions. He did neither. It was only on 02.09.2008 that he made a representation for this purpose. It has already been mentioned that even where a scheme is applicable and there is no controversy as to the entitlement of the dependent, an application is required to be made within one year. The petitioner cannot stand on a higher footing. For all practical purposes, the starting point for the petitioner was the date on which W.P.No.18408 of 1996 was disposed of. He ought to have acted shortly thereafter and at any rate within one year there from. He took more than four years to make the application. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the intimation given by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 08.11.2010. kdl