ORDER S.K. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in letter No. 659 dated . 12th April, 2002 (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder his claim for appointment on compassionate ground under para 9.3.2 of NCWA-V has been rejected on the ground that the application was filed after lapse of about 7 months. 3. The counsel for the respondents submitted that a circular No. PDMP/ 9:4:2/95/7151 dated 12th December 1995 was issued by M/s. CCL Ranchi whereunder six months period from the date of death was stipulated for filing application for compassionate appointment. The petitioners application for compassionate appointment was filed after about 7 months beyond the period of limitation. 4. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Roopna Manjhi v. CCL and Ors., (WP (S) No. 4694 of 2002). This Court, noticed the aforesaid circular dated 12th December, 1995 and vide its Unreported) decision dated 27th November, 2002, observed that the respondents should have allowed about 1-1/2 years time to the heirs/wards of the deceased employee to apply for compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the fact that the heirs of Hindu employees generally mourn for a period of one year from the date of death. 5. In view of the decision of this Court in Roopna Manjhi (supra), I am inclined to grant relief and set aside the impugned letter dated 8th February, 2002 issued by the Personnel Manager, Sayal D Colliery with direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.