ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for quashing the order as contained in memo no.407/W/01-42-Anu-2013 dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure-6) passed by A.I.G.-cum-Special Assistant to D.G.P., Jharkhand whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment of son of the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected illegally and arbitrarily. Further the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the fact that his father died-in-harness. 2. The short fact, giving rise to filing of the present writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner was posted as Constable No.159 in Palamau District Force and on 05.11.2002 he proceeded for field duty but he did not returned. The petitioner reported the Superintendent of Police, Palamau that her husband is traceless. On receiving information from the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police deputed Constable No.320 Ashok Kumar Singh for tracing him and Station Diary No.170 dated 06.11.2002 was registered. The petitioner had also earlier filed writ petition for payment of retiral benefit of her husband in W.P.(S) No.2721 of 2004 which was disposed of on 20.05.2014. It is also stated that the petitioner preferred representation before Superintendent of Police, Palamau and moved several times to S.P., Palamau and as such it was recommended to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand on 09.02.2010 and the petitioner received retiral benefits of her husband. Thereafter, she filed representation for appointment of her son namely Janardan Kumar after seven years of the entry in the Station Diary No.170 dated 06.11.2002 but no response came from the respondent and hence this writ petition. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities relying on Circular/Letter of the Department of Personnel dated 01.02.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner on 11.04.2013 and did not consider the Circular of the State Government of Bihar issued vide memo no.7146 dated 31.10.2008 for appointment of dependents of traceless employee on compensate basis. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner and his mother related to post retiral dues was decided by the respondents in the year 2004 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 Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No.2721 of 2004 and same was disposed of on 20.05.2004. Learned counsel further submitted that the stand taken by the respondent is 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. Learned counsel further submitted that on similar circumstances several cases have been considered by this Court and on such direction the Sate Government has issued the letter of appointment on compassionate ground to several candidates in case of deemed death. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the respondents has drew the attention of this Court towards Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit in which it has been specifically stated that the then Superintendent of Police, Palamau by his office letter no.610/R.O. dated 01.03.2013 had forwarded the affidavits sworn by the petitioner but the D.O. letter no.1263 of 2004, D.O. letter no.967 of 2006, the report of measurement of height and chest belonging to Janardan Kumar son of the traceless Police 159 Dharnidhar Singh and the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Jharkhand at Ranchi for appointment on compassionate ground but the same has been denied by the A.I.G.-cum-Special Assistant to Director General of Police, Jharkhand and in this regard office of the Director General of Police-cum-the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand at Ranchi through its memo no.407/W/01-42-Anu-2013 dated 11.04.2013 has also been communicated to the answering respondent. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason and without taking into consideration the latest Circular of the State Government and there are several decisions and judicial pronouncements of this Court on the issue of deemed death. In the case Sanjai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 AWC 2724 (LB) and also in case of Avinash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed by learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. In the case Sanjai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 AWC 2724 (LB) and also in case of Avinash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed by learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17395 of 2011 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. It has also been held by the Division Bench of High Court of Uttrakhand in Director General of Police and Ors. Vs. Banshidhar Bhatt passed by learned Division Bench of Uttaranchal High Court in Special Appeal No.173 of 2008 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 missing person. 6. Law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependent of deceased is well settled. In Sushma Gosain Vrs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground 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.” 7. In the instant case, the respondent authorities have slept over the matter since 2002 and it was only in 2013 the order has been passed after 11 long years the poor petitioner was waiting for an order from the respondent authorities though the Circular came in the year 2008 itself regarding appointment on compassionate ground on deemed death. In the instant case, the respondent authorities have slept over the matter since 2002 and it was only in 2013 the order has been passed after 11 long years the poor petitioner was waiting for an order from the respondent authorities though the Circular came in the year 2008 itself regarding appointment on compassionate ground on deemed death. The Circular vide memo no.7146 dated 31.10.2008 for appointment of dependents of traceless employee on compassionate basis issued in view of the judgment on Md. Nooralam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007(4) PLJR 200 . 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the guidelines, rules and judicial pronouncement, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order is quashed with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Needless to say if the respondent authorities on consideration finds 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.