JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter no. 2041 dated 28.12.2012 (signed on 26.12.2012) (Annexure4 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner's son has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband. 3. From pleadings in the writ petition it appears that petitioner's husband was working as General Mazdoor who died in harness on 20.06.2011. Thereafter, petitioner filed a detailed representation on 10.01.2012 for her appointment on compassionate ground. Said representation was duly forwarded to the higher authorities on 19.01.2012. On 13.02.2012, the Deputy General Manager (P & A), Barka Sayal Area, made a query regarding appointment of petitioner's son who had attained majority and vide Annexure2 asked for submitting proposal with relevant documents. Thereafter, vide Annexure3 the petitioner made representation to the Project Officer, Sayal 'D' Colliery (Respondent No. 4) to appoint her son on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-4) claim of the petitioner has been rejected and hence petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that her husband was unauthorisedly absent from the duty for a period of seven years. It is further submitted by learned counsel that petitioner's husband was an employee of respondents – CCL and at no point of time he was terminated from the service till his death and as such, as per the settled principles of law petitioner's husband is deemed to be in service of the management at the time of his death. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner's son was minor and has now attained majority and as soon as she was asked, her son applied for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner is wholly illegal, unjust, improper and without any authority in law. Learned counsel further contended that appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship and the claim could not have been thrown purely on hypothetical grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Ram Vs. Learned counsel further contended that appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship and the claim could not have been thrown purely on hypothetical grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Ajay Ram Vs. M/s. Central Coalfields Limited [W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2014] and further submitted that under Rule 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement the son of the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Merely because the petitioner's family survived for long years during absence from duty of deceased employee cannot be ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner. The grounds for rejection of claim of petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate ground is irrational and unfair and as such impugned order is fit to be quashed. 5. On the other hand Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and further by referring relevant paragraphs of the counter submitted that petitioner was chargesheeted and enquiry report has been submitted after hearing the petitioner and the enquiry officer has come to the finding that he was unauthorisedly absent on and from 10.12.2003. It is further alleged that he was a habitual absentee and the total period of absence was more than six years. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that deceased/employee was issued second show cause notice on 18.03.2010 and before any action could be taken, he died. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that since 10.12.2003 till his death on 20.06.2011, husband of the petitioner remain unauthorisedly absent. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – CCL further submitted that in the above premises, case for appointment of son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground has been rejected by impugned order dated 28.12.2012 on the ground that family sustained more than seven years after absence of the deceased employee and there is no case of sudden crisis of breadwinner in the family as the workman was not getting payment from the respondents – Company since the year 2004 and as such, the necessity for providing employment on the basis of compassion is diluted due to the long lapse of time. Learned counsel further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a mode of filling vacancies rather it is an exception to the rule of recruitment and is provided only to help the family of the deceased employee to overcome the sudden financial crisis which the family members have been subjected due to sudden death of the deceased employee. Mr. A.K. Das has tried to distinguish case of the petitioner from the case of Ajay Ram (Supra) and further pointed out that in the case at hand, due to unauthorised absence of deceased-employee, show cause had been issued and proceeding was going on while in the case referred by learned counsel for the petitioner stands on a totally different footing. 6. Be that as it may, considering facts and circumstances and Judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is an admitted position that petitioner's husband was on the roll of the Company till his death i.e. 20.06.2011 and it is further admitted case that no order of termination was passed before his death. Under the circumstances, claim of the respondents that the petitioner and his family members were not dependent on the monthly gain of the deceased – employee is only hypothetical and not based on record. In the instant case petitioner's husband died on 20.06.2011 and soon after his death, petitioner filed representation on 10.01.2012 for her appointment on compassionate ground and it was the respondents who made a request to the petitioner for filing a fresh representation vide order dated 13.02.2012 for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground and as such, the ground taken by the respondents authorities are not at all sustainable. In this regard, it is relevant to mention para-9 of the Judgment in the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468 ,- “9. 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. 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.” From the discussions made above and considering the submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents in not providing appointment to son of the deceased employee is not justified and hence impugned order suffers from infirmity as till date of death, deceased employee was on roll of the Company and merely on the ground of absenteeism it cannot be presumed that he was terminated. Further, it was the respondents themselves who had invited application from the petitioner for appointment of her son on his attaining majority. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order vide letter no. 2041 dated 28.12.2012 (signed on 26.12.2012) (Annexure4 to the writ petition) is not sustainable and as such the same is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to consider case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say if son of the petitioner is otherwise fit for appointment, the letter of appointment be issued within a period of four weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.