ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's father died on 18th July, 1993 while working on the post of Wagon Loader in Urimari Project under Respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. Petitioner's elder brother made an application in 1994 for compassionate appointment in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement which was however declined on account of the fact that he was under age. Petitioner's elder brother on medical examination on 6th June, 1994 was found to be 5 years less than the majority age. Impliedly his date of birth is in June, 1981. That would, in effect, mean that petitioner was below 12 years of age on the death of employee on 18th July, 1993. He definitely did not make a claim for keeping him in live roaster at the relevant point of time, which may not have been permissible also as minimum age prescribed for the said purpose under NCWAV in vogue was 15 years. He, however, made an application after 4 years from the date of rejection of his brother's claim which was declined by the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 12th September, 2000 on the grounds that it has been made after lapse of 4 years from the date of death. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application preferred in the year 2013 alleging that the order of rejection has only been received on 4th March, 2013. No such proof of receipt of the rejection letter on such date is enclosed to the writ application. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the claim of his elder brother was rejected on the ground of underage earlier, petitioner's claim made thereafter should not have been declined. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench in the case of Milan Kumar Vs. Central coalfields Ltd. reported in 2015(1) JBCJ 85 (High Court). 4. The respondents' case is that the petitioner's claim has been belated as per time limit prescribed of 6 months at the time of death in 1993 under the relevant circular in making application for compassionate appointment. Such time was extended to one year in 2002 and thereafter to one and a half year from the date of death with effect from 3rd November, 2009. Such time was extended to one year in 2002 and thereafter to one and a half year from the date of death with effect from 3rd November, 2009. As the petitioner was less than 12 years of age at the time of death, he could not have been kept in live roaster and on such grounds the claim of the petitioner is not tenable. Moreover, he has approached this Court after 20 years of death and 13 years of rejection. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties in the background of material facts pleaded, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is stale and grossly delayed. The petitioner was also underage at the time of death of his father in 1993 and he made an application after 4 years of the death. There is no such document to show the date of birth of the petitioner, though the respondents have by calculating the age of the elder brother of the petitioner on medical examination in June, 1991 reckoned from 1994, assessed that petitioner was below 12 years of age at the time of death. Those facts, however, are insignificant when the issue is considered in the perspective that not only the claim for compassionate appointment was made after considerable delay but the order of rejection on 2nd September, 2000 has been challenged in a writ petition filed after 13 years of such rejection. 6. In view of the settled position of law in matters relating to compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner is unusually stale calling for any interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.