JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The application seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected by order dated 31.05.2012 which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 16/20.07.2012. The father of the petitioner namely, Sohrai Bedia was appointed as driller in respondent CCL on 31.01.1973. He died in harness on 04.10.1995 and after a family relationship certificate was issued on 22.05.1996 by the Block Development Officer, Patratu, Hazaribagh, the mother of the petitioner namely, Jagmania @ Jarmania Devi submitted an application for her appointment on compassionate ground on 24.06.1996. The mother of the petitioner was called for interview and she appeared before the Placement Interview Board at M.R.S. Naisarai on 21.09.1996. However, no decision was communicated to the mother of the petitioner with respect to her request for appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of the petitioner again submitted a written representation on 09.06.1997 before the Project Officer, Lapanga Colliery expressing her willingness for appointment for her son on compassionate ground. The representation of the mother of the petitioner submitted on 09.06.1997 was forwarded to the Personnel Manager, Lapanga Colliery on 18.06.1997 and it was forwarded to the Personnel Manager, C.C.L. with an endorsement that the case may be considered under Clause 9.5.0 Part III of NCWA V. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit stating his date of birth as 25.06.1981. Though, the petitioner attained age of majority on 25.06.1999 and in the meantime, several representations were submitted to the respondent for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, no decision was communicated to the petitioner. In the meantime, the mother of the petitioner died on 07.01.2008 and thereafter, the petitioner again submitted several representations including representations dated 29.04.2010 and 22.11.2011. By the impugned order dated 31.05.2012, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that, at the time when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner was not eligible for being kept on live roster and in fact, the mother of the petitioner was also not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as, she had already crossed the age of 45 years. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that, at the time when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner was not eligible for being kept on live roster and in fact, the mother of the petitioner was also not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as, she had already crossed the age of 45 years. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: 5.That the petitioner has filed the instant writ application for quashing the letter dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure12) and 20.07.2012 (Annexure12/A) by which his case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that on the date of death of his father deceased employee, he was less than 15 years of age and was not even eligible for enrollment of his name in the live roster for employment on attaining the age of 18 years and for a further direction that he may be allowed monetary compensation under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement from the date of death of the employee till the date when he attained his majority and applied for his compassionate appointment. 12. That it is stated that Smt. Jarmania Devi was subjected to age assessment by medical board and the medical board on 29.04.1997 assessed the age as between 53 and 58 years. 13. That it is stated that it is pertinent to mention that under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement V, dealing with the cases of compassionate appointment vide its para 9.5.0(ii) inter alia provides that if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of employment and in the event, the femaledependentisabove45yearsof age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 16. That it is stated that at this stage it is relevant to quote that the relevant provision of NCWAV vide para 9.5.0 (III) dealing with the cases of compassionate appointment inter alia provides that a male dependent 15 years and above in age will be kept in the live roster for employment on attaining the age of 18 years and during the period when the male dependent is kept in live roster the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation. 26. That it is stated that the employee died on 04.10.1995 and by now about 18 years time has elapsed. 26. That it is stated that the employee died on 04.10.1995 and by now about 18 years time has elapsed. By expiry of such a considerable time, the purpose and object of the compassionate appointment to give immediate re life to the distress family members is defeated. On that score alone, the writ application is not maintainable. 27. That it is stated that the provision of compassionate appointment has been included in the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.) only with a view to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate hardship which the family of the employee is subjected to on the death of the their sole bread earner. Such request cannot be considered after lapse of several years of death of the deceased employee, as by that time, the very purpose of compassionate appointment gets frustrated.” 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the father of the petitioner died on 04.10.1995, the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner was never decided in time, and after an inordinate delay of more than 17 years, the respondent authority has communicated the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which is not justified and it is in fact, in gross violation of the very object for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel has further submitted that though, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on the date when his father died, the date on which the impugned decision has been taken by the respondent authority, admittedly the petitioner was eligible and therefore, it was not open to the respondent authority to reject the claim raised by the petitioner on the ground that, at the time when an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was made, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment. 5. As against the above, Mr. 5. As against the above, Mr. A. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents CCL has contended that, since the claim of compassionate appointment itself is an exception to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and it is not a mode of appointment, after about 17 years of the death of the bread earner of the family, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be offered to the dependent of the deceased employee, as the family has weathered the hardship which was caused due to untimely death of the bread earner for the family. The learned counsel further submitted that the rules have to be strictly interpreted and since, in terms of NCWA, on 04.10.1995 when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner was not eligible for being kept on live-roster as his actual date of birth is 25.06.1981, and thus, in this view of the matter also the claim of the petitioner was liable to be rejected which rightly has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.05.2012. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 would indicate that the only ground taken by the respondent authority for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is that, at the time when the deceased employee namely, late Sohrai Bedia died, that is, on 04.10.1995, his minor son Dablu Bedia (present petitioner) was less than 15 years and therefore, he was not eligible to be kept on liveroster. I do not find any reference or any reason given by the respondent authority for not deciding the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 09.06.1997 seeking appointment for the petitioner. 7. It is also not indicated in the impugned order whether, the request made by the mother of the petitioner on 09.06.1997 for keeping her son on live-roster was rejected. 7. It is also not indicated in the impugned order whether, the request made by the mother of the petitioner on 09.06.1997 for keeping her son on live-roster was rejected. I find that an endorsement was made on 25.07.1997 on the representation dated 09.06.1997 submitted by the mother of the petitioner that, the case may be considered under Clause 9.5.0 Part III of NCWA V. From the record in the present proceeding it is clear that the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 09.06.1997 was accepted by the respondent authority and as on 09.06.1997, the petitioner had crossed the age of 15 years and thus, he was eligible to be kept on live-roster and accordingly, on attaining the age of majority, the respondent authority was under a duty to communicate the decision with respect to the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's case was further processed as the Personnel Manager (IA) (B) forwarded the service-sheet excerpt to the Dy. Personnel Manager (MP), CCL, Ranchi on 17.08.1999. By that time, the petitioner had already attained the age of majority on 25.06.1999 and he had passed Matric examination from Hindi Vidyapeeth on 09.04.1999. A representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioner again on 14.10.2001 however, no decision was taken by the respondents and the matter was kept pending for another 11 years and the impugned decision was taken only in the year, 2012. The aforesaid communications and the letters of the authorities of CCL have not been denied by the respondents. The petitioner was eligible on 09.06.1997 for enrollment in the live-roster and he was eligible for appointment on 17.08.1999 when the service record was forwarded by the Personnel Manager (IA) (B). And, the petitioner was eligible for appointment in the year, 2012, is also an admitted position. 8. In “Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 , a case in which the date on which the claim for appointment on compassionate ground was decided by the respondent authority, the applicant had attained the age of majority however, his claim was declined as, at the relevant time he being a minor was not eligible for appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the authority to consider the case of one Syed Khadim Hussain. I am of the view that in a case of this nature in which a representation seeking benefit of compassionate appointment was not decided promptly, the relevant date can be the date on which the claim is decided by the respondent authority. 9. In “Shashikalabai (Smt) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 332 , the benefit of higher compensation under the subsequent circular was extended to the family of the victim, as the date on which the claim was finally decided, the new Circular had come into operation. In the said case the Maharashtra State Electricity Board initially issued a circular dated 5.4.1979 prescribing a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ for the family/dependants of the victim who died by coming into contact with live electric wire however, another circular dated 28.1.1993 was issued enhancing the compensation to Rs. 60,000/with immediate effect subject to the condition that cases already closed should not be reopened. The victim in the said case had died on 18.3.1991 however, there was correspondence between the parties and the case was considered only after the introduction of the new circular dated 28.1.1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “since the present case was not closed on the date of the circular coming into effect, the appellant should have been granted benefit of new circular.” 10. Referring to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – C.C.L. that, if appointment after a lapse of 17 years would be offered to applicant, it would be in violation of the very object for which the scheme for compassionate appointment has been floated, I am of the view that, not offering appointment in time to the family member of the deceased employee, is in fact, a cruel assault to the family of the deceased employee and it is definitely in violation of the very object for which compassionate appointment is offered to the dependent of the deceased employee. The respondent authority cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own latches. 11. In “Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in all claims of appointment on compassionate ground there should not be any delay in appointment. The respondent authority cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own latches. 11. In “Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in all claims of appointment on compassionate ground there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 12. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689. 13. I am of the view that since the petitioner is eligible for appointment, the delay caused by the respondents cannot be the ground to deny the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground. I find that in “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , the employee was made to retire on 30.08.1999 as he was declared as “decategorised employee” and he moved an application on 01.09.1999 seeking appointment for his son and the application was rejected on 15.02.2002. Vide order dated 31.12.2002 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow dismissed the application and the High Court also rejected the petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered judgment on 11.03.2011 directing the respondents to grant appointment on compassionate ground. 14. Coming to the facts of the case again, I find that though the father of the petitioner died in harness on 04.10.1995 and the mother of the petitioner made an application on 24.06.1996, neither she was appointed on compassionate ground nor any monetary compensation has been given to the mother of the petitioner. The relevant provisions under NCWA are extracted below: 9.5.0. Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under: (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/ per month or employment irrespective of her age. 3000/ per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2,000/ per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. 15. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as under: 20.“That it is settled that the provision 9.5.0 (iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement V containing provision of live roster and monetary compensation is separate and distinct from the provision 9.5.0 (ii) of National Coal Wage Agreement V containing provision of employment and/or monetary compensation in lieu thereof to the female dependent. It is stated that a dependent cannot claim the benefit of both the provisions at a time. 21.That it is stated that the petitioner's mother in terms of provision 9.5.0 (ii) of National Coal Wage Agreement V only entitled for monetary compensation but instead of agreeing to the same, the petitioner preferred to avail the benefit of other clause i.e. provision 9.5.0 (iii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement V seeking his employment for which he did not qualify for the fact that on the date of death of the employee he was less than 15 years of age and as such was not entitled even for enrollment of his name in the live roster and as such question of appointment to him on attaining the age of 18 years did not and could not arise.” 16. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that, the respondents have taken contradictory stand, insofar as, the claim of the mother of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is concerned. If the mother of the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years, the application dated 24.06.1996 submitted by the mother of the petitioner was required to be rejected and the monetary compensation as provided under Clause 9.5.0. (ii) & (iv) was required to be given to the mother of the petitioner, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. It is evident that the representation dated 09.06.1997 submitted by the mother of the petitioner seeking employment for him was entertained by C.C.L. The said representation was further processed on 18.06.1997 when the petitioner had crossed the age of 15 years and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be enrolled on live-roster. Once it is found that the monetary compensation to the mother of the petitioner was not paid, in my opinion, the respondents cannot be permitted to take the plea that the petitioner was not eligible for enrollment in the live-roster. Further, merely because the petitioner was made to wait for 17 years when the impugned decision was communicated to him, such delay cannot be a ground to deny him, what law fully should have been offered to him long back. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of the order is communicated to him