Order 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-Widow has sought quashing of communication contained in letter dated 1st February, 2006 whereby the employment of her son being the dependent of deceased-Late Om Prakash Prasad, an employee of the respondent B.C.C.L., has been rejected. She has also made a prayer for payment of monetary monthly subsistence allowance in lieu of the employment at the rate of Rs. 1500.00/- per month from April 1996 to till the date her minor son attained the age of maturity (sic-majority?) alongwith interest. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband late Om Prakash Prasad, a permanent employee of the respondent Company, died during his treatment on 9th April, 1996 while in service. At the time of his death, his son namely Amit Kumar was a minor. Under the SAIL terms and conditions, the petitioner has claimed appointment on compassionate ground for her son which has been rejected by the impugned order contained in Annexure-9. 4. It is the stand of the respondents that under the SAIL terms and conditions, there is no provision or scheme of compassionate appointment applicable to the employees of SAIL, who died in service of Dugda Coal Washery, a unit of Hindustan Steel Limited (H.S.L.) which were taken over by SAIL and thereafter merged with Bharat Coking Coal Limited. After the death, in fact, brother of the present petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment which was objected to. Her application for the compassionate appointment was also rejected as there was no provisions of providing employment in death cases in SAIL and she was offered subsistence allowance or monetary compensation of Rs. 1500.00 per month' till the attaining of 60 years of age of the widow lady. However, the petitioner did not accept the said monetary compensation and after attaining the maturity (sic majority?), her son, Amit Kumar has applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2003, which is not permissible under the terms and conditions of the SAIL. 5. These facts have not been reverted by the petitioner as well, although counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in March, 2007 itself. It further appears that the death of the employee occurred in the year 1996 itself and after ten years, the writ petition was filed. At this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for grant of such compassionate appointment. It further appears that the death of the employee occurred in the year 1996 itself and after ten years, the writ petition was filed. At this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for grant of such compassionate appointment. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases, compassionate appointment is considered as exception to the general Rule of Public Employment to be granted in the terms of the norms and circulars of the Organization to provide immediate relief to' the dependent of the deceased employee, who died-in-harness. 6. However, in respect of the grievances of the petitioner for grant of monetary monthly subsistence allowance, the respondent would reconsider such request of the petitioner for. grant of such subsistence allowance in terms of the circulars prevailing under the SAIL. 7. Let such exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms.