JUDGMENT By Court - The petitioner has approached this Court seeing quashing of order dated 04/05.12.2012, by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and he was working as Fitter. He died in harness on 26.12.2008 and thereafter, the petitioner made a representation for appointment of her son namely, Avinash Kumar Nishad on compassionate ground. Her son also made an application before the Project Officer on 24.06.2010 and enclosed all the relevant documents and thereafter, he was called for medical examination by letter dated 18.03.2012 however, by the impugned order dated 04/05.03.2012, the claim for appointment of the son of the petitioner was declined. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that since the name of the son of the petitioner did not appear in the official documents, claim for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 5. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed, in which specific plea has been taken that since at the time when the official documents were filled in, the son of the petitioner was not born and therefore, name of the son of the petitioner was not entered in the official documents. The name of the petitioner in the matriculation certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, appears as the mother of the Avinash Kumar Nishad and in fact, the respondent-authority has recognised the son of the petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased-employee and the amount accruing on, account of provident fund etc., was handed over to the son of the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. 6. On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that a bank draft for Rs.1,65,332/- was prepared in the name of Avinas Nisad, son of Late Kali Nisad and therefore, it is apparent from the record of the case that the respondent-authorities have recognised the son of the petitioner as the son of the deceased employee and therefore, such amount has been given to him. I further find that the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that the name of her son was not recorded in the company's record rather, an enquiry should have been made by the respondent-authority and they should have asked the petitioner to produce the relevant documents in support of her claim which was not done in this case. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances more particularly, the fact that the respondents themselves have recognised the son of the petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased-employee, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04/05.12.2012 is quashed. Respondent no.5 is directed to offer appointment to the son of the petitioner if found otherwise eligible, within a period of 8 weeks. Petition allowed.