ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 09.03.2012 whereby, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner died on 23.11.2002 and at that time the petitioner was aged about 16 years only. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the father of the petitioner contacted two marriage and out of said wed-locks he had 9 children. An objection has been raised that the other surviving members of the family did not give no objection certificate for appointment of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not offered appointment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time when his father died and therefore, it was the responsibility of the respondent-authorities to keep the name of the petitioner on live-roster. He has further submitted that the children born out of illegal marriage are also entitled for all the benefits for all the purposes under the law. He has relied on judgments reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , 2006 (4) JCR 184 (Jhr), 2013 (2)AJR 122 (DB) and (2012) 4 JLJ 43. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner has made application in the year, 2012 i.e. 10 years after the death of his father, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground. He has relied on a judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 . 7. On a perusal of order dated 09.03.2012, I find that it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is the eldest son born from the wed-lock with 2nd wife namely, Dhanwanti Devi. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the wife, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son are entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The claim of the petitioner has been sought to be denied only on the ground that 1st wife of the deceased employee namely, Dhali Devi is eligible for employment/monetary compensation. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the wife, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son are entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The claim of the petitioner has been sought to be denied only on the ground that 1st wife of the deceased employee namely, Dhali Devi is eligible for employment/monetary compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the stepmother of the petitioner namely, Dhali Devi is aged about 61 years of old and therefore, the plea taken by the respondents for denying the appointment to the petitioner is not justified. I further find that it is not the case of the respondent-authorities that the other surviving members in the family have also made application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. I am of the view that merely because no objection certificate of other family members has not been produced by the petitioner, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied. Admittedly, the other surviving dependents of the deceased employee have not raised their claim and thus, there is no dispute with respect to offer of appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner had made application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner and his step-mother namely, Dhali Devi. The respondent-B.C.C.L. was a party in the said proceeding and the order was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 16.01.2012. Under the provision of N.C.W. Agreement, it was the responsibility of the respondent-company to keep the name of the petitioner on live-roster. The reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 are not sustainable in law and therefore, requires interference by this Court. I further find that in Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Others. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus; “16. The period of six months' limitation prescribed in the Circular Letter dated 12-12-1995 was not statutory. It is also not imperative in character. Even for entertaining such an application beyond the period of six months, the headquarters of the Central Coal Field Limited is entitled to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. Admittedly, the appellant filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds when he was a minor. It is also not imperative in character. Even for entertaining such an application beyond the period of six months, the headquarters of the Central Coal Field Limited is entitled to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. Admittedly, the appellant filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds when he was a minor. His application was rejected on that premise at the first instance but even at that point of time the respondent did not take a stand that the same had not been entertained on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of the period of six months.” 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid discussion. Petition allowed.