ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure-8) filed by way of I.A. No. 2068 of 2012, which is on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of limitation i.e. delay of one and half months. The application for compassionate appointment was filed on by the petitioner on 17.02.2004 and the death of his father had occurred on 28.06.2002, so admittedly, there was a delay of one and half months. Learned counsel further submits that prior to his application for compassionate appointment filed on 17.02.2004, the petitioner had informed the department by way of a representation on 01.08.2003, however, it was not filed in proper proforma as per the requirement of Central Coalfields Limited but, it cannot be said that the respondents authorities were not informed regarding the death of the father of the petitioner or they were not aware of the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajit Kumar learned counsel for Central Coalfields Limited appeared and vehemently opposed the prayer of compassionate appointment of the petitioner stating that as per the provision of N.C.W.A., the application for compassionate appointment must be filed in the required proforma and, that too, within time. 5. Admittedly, It is a case of compassionate appointment and after going through the averments made in the writ petition and also going through the counter affidavit, it is crystal clear that there is delay of one and half months in filing representation for compassionate appointment and merely on technical ground, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and rejected. The grounds for consideration and rejection of compassionate appointment are mentioned in N.C.W.A. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of limitation of one and half months. 6. After going through the submissions made by the counsels and the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondent authorities should consider the case for compassionate appointment keeping in view that the delay is of only one and half months. 7. 6. After going through the submissions made by the counsels and the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondent authorities should consider the case for compassionate appointment keeping in view that the delay is of only one and half months. 7. In view of the above consideration, the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure-8) is, hereby, quashed and the respondents authorities are directed to re-consider the case in view of the fact that delay was of only one and half months and it is a case of compassionate appointment. 8. Needless to say that all the exercises be completed within a period of four months and if the grievance of the petitioner is found to be genuine, the respondent-C.C.L. is directed to take a decision regarding the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.