ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 1. We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents. 2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 03.09.2010 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 12514 of 2005. The learned Single Judge opined that the order dated 12.08.2005 declining the claim for compassionate appointment raised disputed questions of fact if the Appellant was the son of the deceased employee and therefore warranted no interference. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order dated 12.08.2005 suffers from gross in application of mind. It reflects no consideration of the claim in the manner directed in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2002. The impugned order does not discuss much less raise any disputed questions of fact with regard to the Appellant being the son of the deceased. It does not dispute that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 24.11.2000 but only suffered from procedural irregularity with regard to the person before whom it was submitted. The order does not contend that the application in other respects was not in order or that it was defective in any other manner. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that compassionate appointment was not a matter of right. The order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2002 has been complied with. If the authorities were not satisfied of the parentage, the question of compassionate appointment on disputed facts does not arise. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6. Since the order under Appeal does not notice the facts of the case, we consider it necessary to set out the same in support of our conclusions. 7. The father of the Appellant was deceased on 16.03.1999. The mother of the Appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 28.10.1999. On being apprised that she did not fulfill the educational qualification for the same, the Appellant put in his application on 24.11.2000. Non-consideration of it led to the institution of C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2002 by him. The Court observed on 03.05.2005 that if the authorities had any doubts or needed clarifications with regard to his parentage they could make such inquiries from the Municipal Authorites/Panchayat/Birth Certificate/School Admission Register/Ration Card. That it was a common practice in the State for a person to have an alias names. The Court observed on 03.05.2005 that if the authorities had any doubts or needed clarifications with regard to his parentage they could make such inquiries from the Municipal Authorites/Panchayat/Birth Certificate/School Admission Register/Ration Card. That it was a common practice in the State for a person to have an alias names. The consideration directed was subject to the Appellant having made an application for compassionate appointment on 24.11.2000 as a matter of fact. 8. The respondents rejected his claim on 12.08.2005 leading to the institution of the writ application challenged in Appeal. The order of rejection relies on the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Phulwarisharif dated 15.04.1996 which mentioned the name of the son of the deceased as Krishna Kumar Choudhary (the claim of the Appellant being that he had an alias name). The impugned order does not deal or reveal any further enquiry in the manner directed by the Court on 03.05.2005 for parentage of the Appellant as the son of the deceased. To our mind, the order suffers from another illegality when it states that the first right of compassionate appointment rested with the wife of the deceased. Her claim had already been rejected by the respondents whereafter the order in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2002 came to be passed noticing the aforesaid fact also. The order dated 12.08.2005 is apparently bad as it fails to take into consideration relevant materials and also takes into consideration irrelevant materials, vitiating the final order. 9. The order next states that the Appellant had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 24.11.2000 not before the Department but before the District Magistrate. It is not the case of the respondents that the Appellant had submitted no application. It is also not the case of the respondents that the application submitted by the Appellant before the District Magistrate suffered from any illegality/irregularity or deficiency of information hindering consideration. It was at best a procedural irregularity and we are of the opinion that the order dated 03.05.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2000 is purposefully being distorted by the respondents to justify rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on one ground or the other. 10. It was at best a procedural irregularity and we are of the opinion that the order dated 03.05.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2000 is purposefully being distorted by the respondents to justify rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on one ground or the other. 10. In (2012) 7 SCC 248 (DB) [(Shreejith L. vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala] it was observed as follows:- ``……… What is noteworthy is that the Manager did not reject the application on the ground that the same was not in the prescribed format or that the application was deficient in disclosing information that was essential for consideration of the prayer for a compassionate appointment. .……. At any rate, what was important was the substance of the application and not the form. If the application in substance conveyed the request for a compassionate appointment and provided the information which the Manager required for considering the request, the very fact that the information was not in a given format would not have been a good reason to turn down the request. We need to remind ourselves that the scheme is meant to be a beneficial scheme aimed at helping those in need of assistance on account of an untimely demise in the family…..”. 11. It was never brought to the attention of the Appellant that he had submitted his application before the wrong authority. No explanation is forthcoming why the District Magistrate did not forward the application to the concerned Department if it was a procedural requirement. No other disability or disentitlement of the Appellant for compassionate appointment has been urged. We can do no better than quote paragraph-38 of the aforesaid judgment as follows :- “38. Having said that, we have no manner of doubt that in case an application is made by the legal heirs of a deceased employee claiming the benefit of the scheme for compassionate appointment, the deficiencies and defect, if any, in the said application ought to be pointed out to the person concerned to enable him to remove the same within a reasonable time. But if the defects are not removed within the time granted, an adverse inference could be drawn against the person in default. But if the defects are not removed within the time granted, an adverse inference could be drawn against the person in default. On the contrary, where an application is filed, entertained and eventually declined for a reason other than the form in which the same ought to have been filed, the rejection cannot be supported before the higher authority or in the court on the ground that application was non est as the same was not in the prescribed form. The application for appointment filed on behalf of the respondent could not therefore have been rejected on the ground that the same was not in the prescribed form.” 12. We therefore arrive at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 22.08.2005 is not in consonance with the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 5126 of 2000. It declines to consider in the manner directed thus excluding relevant considerations. It is also vitiated for the fact that it takes into consideration irrelevant materials with regard to the first eligibility of the mother of the Appellant. 13. The impugned order dated 12.08.2005 denying claim for compassionate appointment and the order under Appeal dated 03.09.2010 are set aside. 14. The Appellant has tenaciously pursued his claim for success ultimately. He is entitled to the benefits of the same within a period of six weeks from the date receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order by appropriate appointment in accordance with law. 15. The Appeal is allowed.