JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the letter dated 12.12.2012, issued by the Respondent no. 4 General Manager (P & IR), CCL by which claim of petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the application was submitted after delay of four months. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider claim of petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the instant writ petition is that father of petitioner no. 2 Haripat Saw who was permanent employee of respondents – Central Coalfields Ltd. and working as Trammer at Saunda Colliery, Central Coalfields Ltd., died in harness on 10.08.2009. Thereafter, Death Report has been duly submitted on 10.08.2009 by the Central Hospital, CCL, Gandhinagar, Ranchi. After death of the employee, his wife – petitioner no. 1, lost her mental condition and was under the treatment of Dr. A. Kumar, Consultant (Psychiatric), RINPAS, Ranchi for a longer period and she was not in a mental condition to take any decision. After her recovery, the petitioner no. 1 submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment to her son – petitioner no. 2 as per the provisions of Clause – 9.3.2 of the NCWA. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 gave her explanation to the queries made by the Sr. Officer (Personnel), CCL vide his letter dated 25.09.2012 mentioning therein her mental condition and her treatment under psychiatrist. After submission of her reply, the petitioner did not receive any information regarding compassionate appointment. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 21.09.2015, by which the Assistant Manager (Personnel), Central Saunda Colliery, CCL forwarded copy of letter dated 12.12.2012, issued by General Manager (P & IR), CCL under which it was said that claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation as the same had been filed after 22 months of death of concerned employee though the limitation is only for 18 months and as such there is delay of 4 months. 4. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the respondents – CCL has illegally and arbitrarily rejected claim of the petitioner no. 4. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the respondents – CCL has illegally and arbitrarily rejected claim of the petitioner no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground merely on technical ground which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents authorities as it is admitted case of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 was suffering from mental illness and had undergone treatment and as such delay of four months could have been condoned showing compassion to the petitioner. Learned counsel further place reliance on the Judgments reported in 2012(2) JCR 261 , 2003(1) JCR 324, 2009(1) JLJR 352 , 2009(2) JLJR 94 and further in W.P.(S) No. 4266 of 2002 and strongly submits that this is a fit case where the respondents should show their compassion by giving appointment to petitioner no. 2. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that in the matter of appointment, the respondents have to strictly follow their rules and regulations otherwise it will open the flood gate. The NCWA Rules are binding upon the respondents and they cannot give a gobye to the standing orders of Coal India. In the case at hand, the application for compassionate appointment has been submitted after delay of four months and as such, the same could not be considered and has been rightly rejected by the authorities. 6. Having heard the parties and going through rival submission, I am of the considered opinion that request for appointment on compassionate ground of petitioner no. 2 should not have been rejected by the respondents authorities merely on technicalities otherwise the purpose of compassionate appointment shall be frustrated. Denial of deserving cases is denial of social and economic justice as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The Courts cannot be mute spectator where relief is denied to horrendous suffering of a family who has lost its bread winner. Constitutional philosophy should be allowed to become a part of every man's life and then only the Constitution can reach everyone. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid proposition, judicial pronouncements, orders and guidelines, the impugned letter dated 12.12.2012, issued by the Respondent no. Constitutional philosophy should be allowed to become a part of every man's life and then only the Constitution can reach everyone. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid proposition, judicial pronouncements, orders and guidelines, the impugned letter dated 12.12.2012, issued by the Respondent no. 4 General Manager (P & IR), CCL is quashed and set aside and the respondents authorities are directed to reconsider case of the petitioner no. 2 for giving him compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment otherwise, the letter of appointment on compassionate ground be issued immediately thereafter condoning the delay and taking sympathetic view of the matter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands allowed.