ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 7th September, 2012 rendered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3521 of 2012, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. Writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment made on 14th December, 2006 after expiry of the stipulated period of 18 months in view of the circular dated 24th January, 2004 issued by Respondent-BCCL, on the death of her husband Late, Shibu Manjhi, Greaser Helper in Madhuban Coal Washery in harness on 26th February, 2005, was declined by the order dated 15/16th May, 2008 by the respondent authorities of BCCL. Writ petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court in the writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge upon consideration of rival pleas of the parties in the light of the pleadings on record, was of the considered view that the writ petitioner had preferred the application for compassionate appointment after expiry of 18 months period. It also took into account the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SCC 549 also being relied upon by the writ petitioner-appellant in the present appeal to assail the impugned orders of rejection. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged in support of the challenge that: (i) The National Coal Wage Agreement does not prescribe any limitation for making application for compassionate appointment. It is a binding settlement in terms of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the parties. The respondents have fixed an arbitrary time limit of 18 months by way of a circular dated 24th January, 2004, which cannot have the force of law. This fixation of time has also undergone change over a period of time from 6 months to 1 year and 1 and 1/2 year by now. (ii) Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the ratio rendered by Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra) on this count. (iii) The lady applicant being illiterate had moved application after approximately 20 months of the death of her husband which has been arbitrarily declined by the respondent without looking to the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement and Social Welfare Scheme granting compassionate appointment to the dependent of employee dying in harness. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from errors and warrants interference in appeal. 5. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from errors and warrants interference in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL submits that prescription of 18 months laid down under circular dated 24th January, 2004 is reasonable and has been consistently followed in all such cases. There are no provisions to condone the delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment in the hands of respondent authorities. In the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement-V in a different context not denied the right of the employer/respondent-BCCL in laying a time-limit for making such an application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the specific facts of the case found that the plea of time bar was not even a ground for rejection though it was added by way of counter affidavit to the writ petition for the first time. The applicant a minor at the time of death of his father had not been kept in live roster till the age of 18 years in terms of NCWA-V and at the same time the employer had taken an unholy stand that the elder brother of the applicant was employed. Therefore, he could not be taken in appointment on compassionate grounds. In these state of facts, the Apex Court was pleased to quash the impugned judgments and direct appointment of the appellant on a suitable post. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. 6. We have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as also the materials on record. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has squarely dealt with the contention of the writ petitioner on the reliance placed on the judgment of Mohan Mahto (Supra). We have also gone through the judgment and find that facts involved therein were as follows; the employer, BCCL had refused appointment to the minor applicant on the death of his father on the grounds that his elder brother was already in employment. It had also failed to conform to the scheme of NCWA-V by keeping the minor dependent on live roster till the age of 18 years in case of death of bread earner. The plea of age bar was taken by way of counter-affidavit for the first time in the writ petition. The stand of the employer was considered to be unfair in that light. The plea of age bar was taken by way of counter-affidavit for the first time in the writ petition. The stand of the employer was considered to be unfair in that light. However, at para 18 of the report, the Apex Court had clearly observed that it was not necessary to go into the question whether in the teeth of the provisions of NCWAV Respondent-CCL at all had any power to fix a time-limit thereby curtailing the right of the workman concerned. The Apex Court further observed that we would assume that even in such a matter, it had a right. 7. It is beyond dispute that the provisions of NCWA-V do not lay down any time limit for making an application for compassionate appointment. Respondents have, time to time, issued circular fixing a timelimit for making such application. The time-limit of 6 months and 1 year were interfered by the Courts as being unreasonable. However, the circular dated 24th January, 2004 laying down time limit of 18 months have not been challenged in the instant case nor have been held to be unreasonable and arbitrary in any other matter. The prescription of time limit thereunder apply uniformly to all such cases without any exception, neither are there any power to condone the delay in making such application on the part of the respondent employer. The grounds urged by the petitioner in the instant memo of appeal have been duly considered by learned Single Judge in proper perspective while deciding the writ petition. 8. The findings on that score therefore do not appear to suffer from any illegality or error warranting interference in appeal. We, are therefore, satisfied that there is no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.