JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter-alia for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 1005 dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Director, Employment and Training, Jharkhand Ranchi by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected. 2. Further the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his father died in harness. 3. The short facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition is that the father of the present petitioner was posted and working as fourth grade employee in the Industrial Training Institute, Sahibganj and was reported missing since 22.11.2000. The information related to the father of the petitioner, who is missing since 22.11.2000 was also given to the Police Station and thereafter on 20.08.2005 the police submitted its report that despite all efforts, it could not trace Prahlad Bahadur Singh i.e. father of the petitioner. Further it is stated that after a report was submitted by the police, the mother of the petitioner namely Shanti Devi had approached the respondent-authorities for the release of the post retiral benefits and also a representation was made for grant of compassionate appointment to the present petitioner on 18.11.2006. One letter No. 554 dated 06.11.2009 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj to the Principal, Industrial Training Institute stating therein that there is no provision to provide compassionate appointment to the family member of the employee on account of deemed death. 4. The claim of the petitioner and his mother related to the post retiral dues was decided by the respondents in 2010 and the payments were also made after repeated representations but no decision was taken by the respondent-authorities on the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. The claim of the petitioner and his mother related to the post retiral dues was decided by the respondents in 2010 and the payments were also made after repeated representations but no decision was taken by the respondent-authorities on the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner had preferred writ petition in this Hon'ble Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 2503/2013 and vide order dated 24.10.2013 the Hon'ble Court had directed respondent No. 2-Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by condoning the delay and to decide the claim of petitioner on merits which is quoted hereunder:- “I further find that a learned Judge of this Court taking note of the above referred orders, has found the stand taken by the respondents in the said case not justified when a distinction was sought to be made between deemed death and natural death of an employee for rejecting the claim of the dependent of the employee for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner no. 1 namely Prahlad Bahadur Singh was reported missing since 22.11.2000 and an information was given to the police. On 20.08.2005, the police submitted a report that the said Prahlad Bahadur Singh is not traceable. The retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 has been paid by the respondents however, on 18.11.2006 when a representation was made for grant of appointment to the petitioner No. 2, the claim of the petitioners was not decided by the respondents. In the present proceeding, a plea has been raised that there is no provision for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to be dependents of the persons, who are not traceable. A counter-affidavit has been filed on 08.07.2013 in which it has been admitted that the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 have been granted in the year, 2010 itself, I am of the considered opinion that once the claim for grant of the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 has been accepted by the respondents, it is not open to the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate appointment. 1 has been accepted by the respondents, it is not open to the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate appointment. I find support from the order passed in Bijay Kumar Pradhan (Supra) whereunder the rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground by drawing a distinction between deemed death and the natural death of an employee has been found not justified. The present is an identical case. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground. It is made clear that the delay which has occurred during this period would not be taken into account and the claim of the petitioner no. 2 would be decided on merits.” 5. On 30.01.2014 one letter was sent from the Office of Director, Employment and Training, Jharkhand bearing No. 128 to the mother of the petitioner stating therein that no representation has been received by the Department for grant of compassionate appointment and hence it was requested to make a fresh representation with relevant documents for taking appropriate action for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded vide letter dated 24.03.2014 with all relevant documents for taking a decision on the claim of the petitioner. During the pendency of the representation it has also been stated that during the pendency of the representation the petitioner also submitted his matric certificate duly issued by the competent authority to the respondent which has also been taken into consideration. 7. On 13.07.2015 one letter was issued by Director, Employment and Training, Sahibganj that the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected and on 03.08.2015 the petitioner was also informed about the same and hence the present writ application. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason for rejection which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 9. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason for rejection which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 9. Learned Counsel draws attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by this Hon'ble Court in which the Hon'ble Court in para No. 11 and 12 considering every aspect of the matter has clearly directed the respondent-authorities for considering the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground and has held that respondent cannot reject the claim by drawing a distinction between the deemed and natural death of employee. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Sanjai Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2005) 3 AWC 2724 (LB) and also in the case of Avinash Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, in which it has been observed that there is no distinction between civil death and natural death for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment inasmuch as in both the cases bread earner of the family is not at all therein who would come forward to help the incumbents who are in penury. Purpose is to provide help to the family of the deceased employee whether it is a case of natural death or it is a case of civil death. 11. Strengthening his argument, learned Counsel also placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Uttrakhand in Director General of Police and Others vs. Banshidhar Bhatt, in which claim of the petitioner was allowed for compassionate appointment to the dependent of a person who was missing for more than 7 years and after investigation the police could not trace out the missing person. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 10 of the counter-affidavit which shows that the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj after verification found that as per the Govt. letter No. 409 dated 22.01.2008 it is clear that there is no any provision for appointment on compassionate ground in matters of missing employee. 13. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 10 of the counter-affidavit which shows that the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj after verification found that as per the Govt. letter No. 409 dated 22.01.2008 it is clear that there is no any provision for appointment on compassionate ground in matters of missing employee. 13. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit a fresh ground has been taken by the respondents that petitioner is matric failed and the said application was not recommended by the authority concerned rather the petitioner had directly submitted matric pass certificate to the District Compassionate Committee, Sahibganj and it was resolved to return the application with the documents of the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent-authorities has acted as per Rules and Govt. guidelines and hence the writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law and as such the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 14. I have considered rival contention of both the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. From the impugned order it transpires that the case of the petitioner has been rejected mechanically without assigning any reason. It is settled principle of law that a reason cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit. This view has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gordhan Das Jee vs. Police Commissioner, AIR 1952 SCC 16 and further in the case of Mahendra Singh Gill, 1978 (1) SCC 405 : 2011 (1) JLJR 622 . 15. Law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependants of a deceased employee is well settled. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, held that:- “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 16. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 16. The settled law which has been reported in various cases has been succinctly elucidated in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2014 (12) SCC 583 wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously as possible and held as under: “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. 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.” 17. In the instant case, the respondent authorities have slept over the matter since 2006 and it was only in 2013 the order has been passed i.e. for seven long year the poor petitioner was waiting for an order from the respondent-authorities though there was specific order of this Hon'ble Court dated 24.10.2013 for taking decision in the matter of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment. 18. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and settled principle of law and pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 19. Needless to say if the respondent-authorities on consideration find the case of the petitioner fit for compassionate appointment, the appointment letter should be issued within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order. 20. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid guidelines, Rules and Judicial pronouncements, the writ petition stands allowed.