JUDGMENT : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of employment on compassionate ground in place of his father who was a permanent employee under the respondent, and died on 10.01.1995 while he was in service. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in this writ petition is that the father of the petitioner Late Dewan Kumar was employed under the respondent company in the post of Blacksmith. After the death of father of petitioner, an application for employment on compassionate ground was filed by mother of petitioner as petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Thereafter, when petitioner attained age of majority, the mother of petitioner was given as option for providing service to the petitioner as a legal heir of the deceased employee on the ground of compensation. Thereafter, the matter remains with the respondent and the petitioner being assured by the Management that his case is under consideration and the Management intimated the petitioner that due to some discrepancy in the document of the employment of the petitioner, it has been returned back and asked some fresh detail by way of query from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner replied by a letter and submitted before the Management and waited for the consideration of the respondent and approached before the Management but every time assurance given to the petitioner that his case is pending before the competent authority for consideration. The petitioner approached before the Management number of time but nothing was done nor any reply was given to the petitioner as to why he is not being considered for his employment on compassionate ground. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground within time but the same has not been considered till date and in the year 2009 i.e. on 24.03.2009 the respondents have asked for appearing before them with all the documents and thereafter nothing has been done though several assurances have been given for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is only from the counter affidavit the petitioner has come to know that his case has been rejected on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is only from the counter affidavit the petitioner has come to know that his case has been rejected on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when his case was rejected on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003 what was the occasion for the management of BCCL to issue letter dated 23/24.03.2009 contained in Annexure2 of the writ application. Learned counsel further submits that Annexure2 is manufactured document at the behest of BCCL and the respondentBCCL is trying to misguide the Hon'ble Court and intentionally for extraneous consideration, the case for appointment has not been considered. 4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed on 06.02.2015. From the said counter affidavit, it appears that the case of the petitioner was rejected as far back as on 30.04.2003. In compliance of order dated 6th May, 2016, the General Manager, BCCL filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.06.2016. Learned counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha appearing for the BCCL draws the attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-BCCL dated 21.06.2016 submits that for the first time the application was made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 16.08.2000 which was forwarded by Sr. Personnel Manager, Jogidih Colliery to the Deputy Personnel Manager, Govindpur Area on 07/22.09.2000 and further on 11.03.2000 the application was forwarded from Govindpur Area to General Manager (P & IR). It is apparent from the record that the Personnel Manager (MP & R) had informed the General Manager, Govindpur Area that the application of the petitioner was regretted by the competent authority and the Deputy Personnel Manager had written a letter to the petitioner on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003 informing that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the competent authority-BCCL and the said letter was sent to the petitioner at his correspondence address. It was submitted by the learned counsel that after lapse of nine years from the date of submission of earlier application the petitioner had filed an application before the Project Officer, Jogidih Colliery, Dhanbad on 16.03.2009 by which the only query was regarding the status of his application for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. It was submitted by the learned counsel that after lapse of nine years from the date of submission of earlier application the petitioner had filed an application before the Project Officer, Jogidih Colliery, Dhanbad on 16.03.2009 by which the only query was regarding the status of his application for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Indrajit Singh draws the attention of the Court towards Paragraph 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit that with malafide intention and only to survive his claim for compassionate appointment the petitioner has made application before the newly appointed Project Officer after lapse of nine years without disclosing any details of his father and as such the said Project Officer asked for all relevant documents in connection with the application dated 16.03.2009 to ascertain the status of the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot gain anything from the said letter and in order to misguide the Court entire wrong facts has been brought before this Court and as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and after deep consideration and taking into account the relevant documents brought to the knowledge of this Court by way of supplementary affidavit dated 21.06.2016, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner was dismissed earlier as back as in the year 2003 and the same was informed to the petitioner at his home address. No case of compassionate appointment is made out. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.