ORDER Father of the petitioner Late Braham Deo Ravidas, Ex-Trip Munshi, had expired on 29.10.2005. Late Braham Deo Ravidas was made to retire on 31.07.2004 from Bharat Coking Coal Limited. 2. The claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was earlier rejected by the Management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited on the ground that on 29.10.2005, when Late Braham Deo Ravidas expired, he was not in the service of the Company and had earlier been superannuated on 31.07.2004. Decision of the Company rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was assailed by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2668 of 2007-Chandan Ravidas vs. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and another, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2007, annexure 2 to the writ petition. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2007 was upheld in L.P.A. No. 24 of 2008 vide judgment dated 6.2.2008, Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 3. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner (widow of Late Braham Deo Ravidas) namely, Shakunti Devi, had filed W.P. (S) No. 2538 of 2008 before this Court saying that the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Braham Deo Ravidas was wrongly retired on 31.7.2004 while he ought to have been allowed to continue in the employment as per the entries made in Form "B", as per the Medical Board opinion i.e. 40 years as on 10.4.1989. 4. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 17.7.2009 , Annexure 4 to the writ petition, has allowed the writ petition filed by the mother of the petitioner with observation that father of the petitioner was wrongly forced to retire on 31.7.2004 while he ought to have been allowed to work treating his date of birth as mentioned in Form "B" as opined by the Medical Board. The learned Single Judge has issued direction to the employer Company to assess the financial loss on the basis of the salary and other monetary benefits which Late Braham Deo Ravidas could have earned if he had been allowed to work during the life time and the amount so assessed shall be paid to the mother of the petitioner together with statutory interest. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2009, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, was upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 509 of 2009, vide judgment dated 5.5.2011, Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 5. In the light of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure 4) as upheld by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 5th May, 2011 (Annexure 5), the petitioner once again approached the employer Company for seeking compassionate appointment saying that in view of the judgment passed by this Court, the petitioner's father should have been treated in service on 29.10.2005 and should not have been treated as retired on 31.7.2004. The said claim of the petitioner was once again rejected by the Company vide impugned order dated 11.4.2012 (Annexure 8). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has once again knocked the door of this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records. 7. There is absolutely no doubt that in view of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.7.2009, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, and the order of the L.P.A. Bench dated 5.5.2011 that on 29.10.2005, when the father of the petitioner died, he should have been treated in service. There is also no dispute on the point that the National Coal Wage Agreement is binding on the parties in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto vs. Central Coalfields Limited and others [(2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 549]. 8. On being asked as to how much amount the petitioner or his mother has received pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure 4), as upheld by the L.P.A. Bench vide order dated 5.5.2011, learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated that approximately Rupees Two Lacs were paid by the Company. 9. Father of the petitioner has expired on 29.10.2005. Today we are running in 2012. Almost seven years have gone from the date of death of the petitioner's father. 10. 9. Father of the petitioner has expired on 29.10.2005. Today we are running in 2012. Almost seven years have gone from the date of death of the petitioner's father. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the word used in the National Coal Wage Agreement is "dependent" nor the word "legal heir", meaning thereby only such legal heir would be given compassionate appointment who was totally dependent on the deceased employee. In other words, a candidate seeking compassionate appointment has to prove that he was totally dependent on the deceased employee and is still have no other source of income, and if compassionate appointment is not granted, he may reach to the stage of starvation. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others [(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209] in paragraphs 18,19 and 20 has held as under:-- "18. Similarly, in SAIL vs. Madhusudan Das, this Court has observed that: (SCC p.566, para 15) "15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. when such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." 19. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." 19. In V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P., this Court while observing that although appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on compassionate grounds are well-recognised exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies, highlighted the following two well-recognised contingencies as exceptions to the general rule: (SCC p. 741, para 18) "(i)appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii)appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner." 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. the request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crises occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv)Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts." 12. (iv)Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts." 12. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (Supra), it can safely be said that appointment on compassionate ground, offered to the dependant of the deceased employee is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crises occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. 13. Having perused the entire writ petition, I am not able to find a specific assertion to this effect that on the day of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was totally dependant on him and was not having any other source of income. Moreover, there is no assertion to this effect also as to how the petitioner is surviving even after expiry of seven years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. In the absence of financial crisis, the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement to give compassionate appointment should not be invoked lightly. Of course the Court must exercise its discretion in the matter of compassionate appointment. However, such discretion should be a judicial discretion. If the petitioner is not able to make out a case that he was totally dependant on the deceased employee and has no other financial source of income to survive, there is no question of granting compassionate appointment. 14. In view of the above, no mandamus can be issued against the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.