JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the order dated 05/16.05.2011 in pursuance of letter no. AR-111/JU/2011/417 and further prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment on compassionate ground to the petitioner in place of his deceased father and also to make payment of entire amount of Death-cum-Retirement benefits including the amount of Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity with statutory interest. 3. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application is that at the time of death of the father of petitioner no. 2 the age of petitioner no. 2 was 11 years and 11 months and as such the petitioner no. 1 being the mother of petitioner no. 2 submitted her representation to Project Officer (respondent no. 3) requesting therein to consider the case for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 18 years. The father of petitioner no. 2 died in harness on 25.05.2003 when the age of the petitioner was 11 years and 11 months. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of the deceased father, the mother made representation on 27.05.2003 and further on 02.05.2011 fresh representation was filed by petitioner no. 1. The respondent vide letter dated 16.05.2011 rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground with the reason that the application has been submitted after expiry of 18 months which is the prescribed period for filing of representation in proper proforma on compassionate ground stating therein that death occurred on 25.05.2003 and after eight years the application has been made on 02.05.2011. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Sinha appearing for the petitioner submitted that at the time of death of petitioner no. 2 the petitioner was aged about 11 years and 11 months itself and as such the mother represented on 27.05.2003 when the petitioner was minor. Learned counsel further submitted that after attaining the majority the petitioner no. 1 made a fresh application on 02.05.2011. It is further submitted that respondents have acted arbitrarily and illegally and have rejected the case of the petitioner against the Rules and guidelines as envisaged in Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement. Learned counsel further submitted that after attaining the majority the petitioner no. 1 made a fresh application on 02.05.2011. It is further submitted that respondents have acted arbitrarily and illegally and have rejected the case of the petitioner against the Rules and guidelines as envisaged in Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Mohan Mahto vs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited and Others, 2007 (4) JLJR 144 . 5. A counter affidavit has been by the respondent. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has approached before the respondent authority after eight years of death of the father and as such the order of rejection has rightly been passed. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly at the time of death of petitioner was less than 12 years of age and in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA (V) brought in effect 01.01.2000, if the male dependent of the concerned workman was 12 years of age or above, his case would be kept on live roster. Admittedly, the petitioner was only 8 years of age at the time of death of his father, therefore, the respondent-BCCL could not keep him in the live roster for the purpose of employment after attaining the majority. Learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 493 of 2015 where the similar issue fell for consideration and this Court rejected the case of the petitioner with the following observations: “This appears to be a hard case, but cases of compassionate appointment or such social security measures are to be considered as per the scheme or agreement entered into between the Management and the Workman, especially in Industrial Undertaking like the respondent-CCL. The scheme does not permit the minor below 12 years of age for being kept in live roster. The denial of petitioner’s claim cannot be said to suffer from legal infirmity and violation of laid down provision of N.C.W.A.” 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that impugned order warrants no interference. The denial of petitioner’s claim cannot be said to suffer from legal infirmity and violation of laid down provision of N.C.W.A.” 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that impugned order warrants no interference. As far as retirement benefits are concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities on receipt of such representation will consider the payment of entire retirement benefits in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled for the same, the entire benefits be extended within a further period of four weeks. 7. As accumulative effect of the aforesaid observations and facts, the writ petition is disposed of.