Order : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction for calling of the entire records from the Respondent authorities pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 (ANNEXURE P-1), passed by the Respondent No.02, 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the son of late Sukhraj Yadav, who was working as Peon-cum-Guard in the Cold Storage of District Marketing Federation Limited, Surajpur. During his service tenure, late Sukhraj Yadav died in harness on 01.04.2000, leaving behind his widow and minor son. At the time of his death, the petitioner was only about four months old. After the demise of the employee, the petitioner’s mother, Saraswati, submitted an application dated 30.05.2001 before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. However, the said application remained pending without any decision. After attaining the age of majority and on completion of the Higher Secondary School Certificate, the petitioner himself submitted an application along with all required documents for grant of compassionate appointment, followed by several representations and reminders, but no decision was taken by the respondents. 3. Aggrieved by the continued inaction, the petitioner filed WPS No.8725/2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2022 directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim within four months. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2022; however, the same was rejected by the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023, leading to the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the circulars governing compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2022; however, the same was rejected by the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023, leading to the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the circulars governing compassionate appointment. It is undisputed that the petitioner's father died in harness on 01.04.2000 and at that time the circular dated 10.06.1994 was in force, which clearly provides that if a dependent is a minor at the time of death, such dependent shall be entitled to compassionate appointment on attaining majority. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim is fully covered under the prevailing policy. It is submitted that the respondents have completely ignored the binding circular dated 02.02.2006, which specifically mandates that cases of employees who died between 01.11.1997 and 31.10.2000 are to be considered in accordance with the prevailing instructions applicable to undivided Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner’s case squarely falls within the said period, yet the Respondent No.02 has misapplied subsequent policies, rendering the rejection order legally unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel submits that despite clear directions issued by this Court in WPS No.8725/2022 to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law, the respondents have passed the impugned order in a mechanical and non-speaking manner, without considering the letter dated 29.08.2022 issued by Respondent No.03 and without examining the relevant material placed on record. Such action amounts to non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee, and the prolonged inaction on the part of the respondents cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner’s legitimate claim. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable policy. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has no vested or indefeasible right to seek compassionate appointment, as such appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and must strictly conform to the policy in force. It is contended that the competent authority has examined the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the prevailing provisions and guidelines governing compassionate appointment. It is contended that the competent authority has examined the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the prevailing provisions and guidelines governing compassionate appointment. He further submits that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee and cannot be claimed after an inordinate delay. In the present case, the death of the employee occurred on 01.04.2000, whereas the petitioner’s claim has been pressed after a long lapse of time, defeating the very object and purpose of the scheme. Therefore, the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay and non-fulfilment of the requisite conditions. 7. It is further argued that subsequent policies and amendments governing compassionate appointment do not permit consideration of claims made after such prolonged delay and that the petitioner’s case does not fall within the permissible categories under the applicable rules. The respondents have acted within the framework of law and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. It is lastly submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 has been passed after due consideration of all relevant aspects and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in WPS No.8725/2022. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. In the matter of Tinku v. State of Haryana and others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforces the sanctity of established policies governing compassionate appointments. It elucidates that while the judiciary stands as a guardian of constitutional rights, it must operate within the confines of existing legal frameworks and policies. The ruling underscores that benefits like compassionate appointments are not inherent rights but are subject to eligibility criteria and administrative discretion and observed as follows :- “11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. 12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted. 14. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment. 13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted. 14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. 15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right. 16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.” 10. Further, in the matter of Aditya Yuvraj Gond v. State of Bihar and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5842, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or granted after a long lapse of time. Further, in the matter of Aditya Yuvraj Gond v. State of Bihar and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5842, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or granted after a long lapse of time. It has been reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of recruitment, but is intended only to tide over the immediate financial crisis faced by the family consequent upon the death of the sole breadwinner, by observing as under :- “4 It is well settled that claim for compassionate appointment is not to be considered as a regular mode of appointment and it is intended to address the penurious situation in the immediate aftermath of the death of the bread earner of the family. As noted, the concerned employee died 23 years back and in these circumstances, we are disinclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.” 11. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The scheme of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness. It is not meant to confer a hereditary right to employment nor to revive claims after a long lapse of time, once the immediate financial crisis is no longer shown to exist. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father, late Sukhraj Yadav, died in harness on 01.04.2000. At that time, the petitioner was a minor. Though it is contended that the petitioner’s mother had submitted an application dated 30.05.2001, the record reveals that the petitioner himself pursued the claim for compassionate appointment only after attaining majority and completion of higher secondary education. Despite repeated representations, there is no material placed on record to establish the existence of any subsisting or immediate financial distress warranting compassionate appointment after such a prolonged period. 13. The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over sudden hardship faced by the family at the time of death of the employee. In the present case, more than two decades have passed since the death of the petitioner’s father. The long lapse of time itself demonstrates that the family had survived the initial crisis. 13. The object of compassionate appointment is to tide over sudden hardship faced by the family at the time of death of the employee. In the present case, more than two decades have passed since the death of the petitioner’s father. The long lapse of time itself demonstrates that the family had survived the initial crisis. Mere pendency of representations or correspondences cannot confer a continuing cause of action or revive a claim which has lost its very basis with the passage of time. 14. Though reliance has been placed on the circular dated 10.06.1994 permitting consideration of a minor dependent upon attaining majority, such provision cannot be construed to mean that a claim can be entertained after an indefinite or unreasonable delay. Compassionate appointment policies, by their very nature, require expeditious invocation, and the benefit cannot be extended mechanically without examining whether the foundational requirement of immediate need still subsists. 15. This Court also notes that pursuant to the earlier order passed in WPS No.8725/2022 dated 12.12.2022, the petitioner’s claim was duly considered by the competent authority and was rejected by a reasoned order dated 23.03.2023. The said order reflects consideration of the relevant aspects and cannot be said to have been passed in disregard of the directions of this Court. 16. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. The mere fact that the petitioner attained majority or that representations remained pending does not create an enforceable entitlement, particularly when the claim is pressed after an inordinate delay. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities have acted within the framework of the applicable policy and law while rejecting the petitioner’s claim. No arbitrariness, perversity or illegality is discernible in the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The challenge to the impugned order fails. 19. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.