JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 28.08.2009 issued by the respondent no. 5, wherein the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected. 2. The father of the petitioner namely Narendra Singh was working as a Store Keeper in Sirka Colliery, Argada Area of M/s CCL, who died in harness on 24.08.2007. An application was submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 15.09.2007 requesting therein to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The siblings of the petitioner had already given a No Objection with respect to the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. However, by virtue of order dated 28.08.2009, passed by the respondent no. 5, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected as the name of Ajay Kumar (petitioner) does not figure in the list of dependent of late Narendra Singh. 3. Heard Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in service excerpts of late Narendra Singh, the name of the petitioner figures as Abhay Kumar Singh. Similarly, in LTC record, in photo medical card issued by the CCL, name of Abhay Kumar Singh figures. It has further been submitted that the petitioner passed his matriculation from Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi, wherein the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Ajay Kumar. It has also been submitted that household name of the petitioner is Abhay Kumar Singh, which had been entered in various service documents of late Narendra Singh but the actual name of the petitioner is Ajay Kumar, which finds place in all the educational certificates granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further adds that in the certificate with respect to the family of Smt. Laljhari Devi, the widow of late Narendra Singh, the name of the petitioner figures as Abhay Kumar Singh. Affidavits showing that Abhay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar is one and the same person has also been produced before the authorities but the same has not been considered. It has been submitted that the Personnel Manager of Sirka Colliery was represented by a number of employees of Sirka Colliery who have vouched for the fact that although the petitioner has two names but he is indeed the son of late Narendra Singh. It has been submitted that the Personnel Manager of Sirka Colliery was represented by a number of employees of Sirka Colliery who have vouched for the fact that although the petitioner has two names but he is indeed the son of late Narendra Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of producing all the relevant documents before the authorities but still the respondent no. 5 had rejected the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the list of dependents of late Narendra Singh. It has also been submitted that in similar circumstances, dependents having different names have been provided compassionate appointment in the company. 5. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that upon the death of Narendra Singh, who was a Store Keeper in Sirka Project, application was made for being appointed on compassionate ground by one Ajay Kumar and in course of verification, it had come to light that in service sheet excerpts, gratuity nomination form, LTC Form, Form-P.S-III under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, the name of one of the dependents of late Narendra Singh has been shown as Abhay Kumar Singh and not Ajay Kumar. It has been submitted that there is a glaring discrepancy with respect to the person who has claimed compassionate appointment and the person whose name figures in the list of dependents and in such circumstances, the respondent no. 5 had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. The impugned order dated 28.08.2009 has merely rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating therein that in the service record of ex-employee, the name of the petitioner does not exist. No discussion has been made with respect to various documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim. The claim which has been put forward by the petitioner that Abhay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar are one and the same person could not have been brushed aside lightly. There are instances, in which there is an apparent discrepancy with respect to the name of the claimant and the best course open to clear the entire matter is to conduct an inquiry to verify the genuineness, truthfulness or otherwise of such claim. There are instances, in which there is an apparent discrepancy with respect to the name of the claimant and the best course open to clear the entire matter is to conduct an inquiry to verify the genuineness, truthfulness or otherwise of such claim. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that an inquiry was conducted by the Management to verify the claim of the petitioner. 7. In the case of Rewa Lal Munda Vs. CCL & Ors., reported in 2011 (1) AIR Jhar R 395 wherein some differences arose with respect to the name of the dependent, this Court while deciding the issued held as follows:- “8 The order passed under Annexure-A denying the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, virtually amounts denial of the fact that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee which affects social status of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to have an enquiry in the matter so that status of the petitioner be ascertained. That apart, the order as contained in Annexure-A seems to have been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and hence simply on that ground, the said order is fit to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 9. Under the circumstances, let an enquiry be held in the matter by High Power Committee which, according to learned counsel appearing for the CCL is there for deciding this kind of dispute. 10. It is needless to say that the High Power Committee while making enquiry will be giving opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter and to produce all the relevant documents before the Committee.” 8. The admitted position, therefore, is that although the petitioner claims himself to be Abhay Kumar Singh as well as Ajay Kumar and since the entire crux of the problems arises with respect to dual name of the petitioner, due to which the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected but since no enquiry had been conducted prior to such rejection, it would be in the interest of justice that the claim of the petitioner that Ajay Kumar and Abhay Kumar Singh are one and the same person should be considered by the respondents. In this background, the impugned letter dated 28.08.2009 issued by the respondent no. In this background, the impugned letter dated 28.08.2009 issued by the respondent no. 5 being not in accordance with law being a thoroughly unreasoned and non speaking order is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. It would be desirable that to look into the dispute, a High Power Committee be constituted by the respondent no. 2 General Manager (P&IR) who after examining the various documents submitted by the petitioner shall take a decision with respect to the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner should also be given an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case. The entire exercise, as indicated above, shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.