requires to refer herein that the principle of delay in providing appointment on compassionate ground will also not come in the way for consideration of the case of the respondent/applicant because the respondent/applicant is claiming appointment on compassionate ground right after the death of her father and due to prolong litigation as yet the case of the respondent/applicant is pending and it is also settled that the litigant cannot be allowed to suffer due to pendency of litigation before the Court of Law, however, if the claimant would not have approached before the Court of Law within the reasonable time, certainly the claim for appointment on compassionate ground will be said to have frustrated but as per the facts available herein, the respondent/applicant is contesting the case right from the very beginning and it is respondents, who, even after the Circular No.01/1992 having been held to be illegal, have not provided appointment on compassionate ground, this shows the intention of the respondents that in one way or the other they want to deprive the claim of the respondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate ground by taking the plea this time about the claim of the daughter of the first wife even though she has not contested the case from the beginning rather the claim has been made after lapse of about 17 years that too after attaining the age of 55 years and these facts have led us to come to the view that the respondents, who is coming within the meaning of State, even though has formulated a scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground but has not acted bona-fidely rather contrary to the object and intent and in such circumstances the issue of delay and latches
