ORDER : By the Court - In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order vide memo no. PO/Karma/9.3.2/06-07/761 dated 25.12.2006 and memo no. PO/Karma/31/09/323 dated 18.7.2009 by which the compassionate appointment of the petitioner had been rejected by the authorities. Further, prayer has been made by the petitioner that as per the mandate of clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wages Agreement V (in short N.C.W.A.V) the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner, Gokul Mahto was working as Driver (Col-V) in Karma Colliery, Karma Project, Kuju Area of Central Coalfields Limited. In course of his employment during the preliminary election of 1996, the father of the petitioner died in mines blast on 7.5.1995. On the ground of the death of the father of the petitioner, an application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed by the mother of the petitioner and as per the note, she mentioned that the petitioner is 11 years old and the appointment shall be considered only on the basis of petitioner's attaining the age of 18 years which however was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 25.12.2006. The petitioner once again filed an application before the respondent no.6 but the same was also rejected by the respondent no.6 vide memo dated 18.7.2009. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Abhijit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents-C.C.L. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although in the impugned order, reason has been assigned by the respondent-authorities to the effect that in terms of the N.C.W.A, the male dependent below the age of 15 years could not be kept in live roster and since the petitioner was 11 years of age at the relevant point of time, the case for compassionate appointment was not considered. 5. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently in the counter-affidavit the respondents have given reasons for rejecting the plea of the petitioner by asserting that the mother of the petitioner was already in employment in the respondent company and after almost 10 years from the date of death of his father the petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that so far as double employment is concerned the respondents have themselves taken a decision which is evident from letter dated 16.4.2008 wherein pursuant to the meeting held, in the decision regarding double employment, Clause 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A has been rectified. Learned counsel further adds that the Circular dated 21.1.2012 deals with reconsideration of the cases for compassionate appointment which was rejected at the time of filling of application and by way of example, appointment of one Sri Ghanshyam Mahto has been noticed wherein subsequently in terms of circular dated 21.1.2012, employment was provided to him. 7. Mr. C. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not attain 15 years of age to be kept in live roster and subsequently he had attained majority. He has made an application for compassionate ground which was belatedly made, since the matter of the petitioner's appointment was rejected because the question regarding the financial crisis occurring on the death of the father of the petitioner did not arise. In this context, he has referred to the case of Somaru v. Central Coalfields Limited & Others in W.P.(S) No.1170 of 2011, Fulchand v. Central Coalfields Limited & Others in W.P.(S) No.1288 of 2005, and in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 . 8. The fact which is undisputed is that the petitioner was aged 11 years when his father-Gokul Mahto died on 7.5.1995. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement existing at the relevant point of time for keeping the male dependant in the live roster was supposed to be minimum 15 years of age. The petitioner being 11 years of age did not fall within the zone of consideration to be kept in the live roster. The petitioner being 11 years of age did not fall within the zone of consideration to be kept in the live roster. Moreover, in the counter-affidavit it appears that admittedly the mother of the petitioner was in employment in Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment after 10 years i.e. after attaining majority, and also during the period when his mother is on verge of superannuation. Since admittedly the mother of the petitioner was in service, the basic purpose of granting compassionate appointment to help the petitioner tide over the financial crisis gets frustrated. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment has been considered in the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 wherein it was held as follows:- “The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service.” 9. The above circumstances shows that the case of the petitioner do not fall within the zone of consideration, in view of the fact that the mother of the petitioner was already in employment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the circulars issued by the Central Coalfields Ltd. from time to time which shows double employment is permissible in terms of letter dated 16.04.2008. The cut off date for such consideration is 1.4.2007. The claim of the petitioner that belated claims have also been considered as in the case of Ghanshyam Mahto but the said contention can be easily distinguishable as the mother of the petitioner is already in service. In the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh (supra) it was held as follows:- Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 11. In the case of Somaru v. Central Coalfields Limited and Others (Supra), the delay of more than half a dozen years, after the death of the deceased employee was considered and the writ application was dismissed. 12. In the present case also the father of the petitioner died in 1995 and the application was made in the year 2003 and also considering that the mother of the petitioner was already in service at the time of the death of his father, in such circumstances, the petitioner having failed to make out a case for interference, the impugned order is sustained. Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.