ORDER : Order dated 15.3.2002 by which claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined by the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited, has been challenged by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is daughter-in-law of the employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin who was appointed as 'Hazari Kamin' on 16.4.1980 under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited. Petitioner's husband predeceased her on 23.3.1997 and her mother-in-law also died on 9.2.2000. Seeking compassionate appointment the petitioner submitted application on 2.6.2000 which was declined on the ground that petitioner's name is not recorded in the service excerpts of the employee. The employee namely, Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin had one son and three daughters. One of her daughters died on 19.7.2002 and the petitioner has pleaded that her second sister-in-law has given' no objection for her compassionate appointment under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited. It appears that pursuant to discussion between Trade Union and Management of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was again examined, however, finally declined on 11.4.2016. 3. Contending that without making an enquiry on the status of the petitioner rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that her name is not recorded in the service excerpts is apparently illegal, Sri Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 11.4.2016 which gives a different reason for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is liable to be quashed. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that had the amount legally payable to the legal heirs of the employee been paid to them it would have earned interest over the amount and since this amount was lying with the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited where it earned interest, the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited is under an obligation to make payment of interest over the unpaid post-retiral dues to the legal heir(s) of the employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin. 4. Seriously opposing challenge to order dated 15.3.2002, Sri D.K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited submits that a claim for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA cannot be transferred by an assignment. Moreover, the writ petition challenging order dated 15.3.2002 cannot be entertained after a delay of 15 years. 5. 4. Seriously opposing challenge to order dated 15.3.2002, Sri D.K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited submits that a claim for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA cannot be transferred by an assignment. Moreover, the writ petition challenging order dated 15.3.2002 cannot be entertained after a delay of 15 years. 5. There is no dispute that after her claim for compassionate appointment was declined on 15.3.2002, the petitioner did not challenge the said order and it has become final. Communication of another rejection order dated 11.4.2016, in my opinion, would not wipe-out delay in approaching the Court. Moreover, merely because a different reason, which also is correct, has been communicated vide order dated 11.4.2016 for rejection of claim for compassionate appointment, which is not under challenge, claim for compassionate appointment in the face of order dated 15.3.2002 cannot survive. 6. However, insofar as claim for payment of post-retiral benefits are concerned, the respondents are under a duty to make payment of such dues. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited there is no whisper why post-retiral dues were not paid to the surviving legal heirs of the employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin whose name were recorded in the service excerpts. It is not the case pleaded by the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited that in spite of communication to the dependants of the employee they did not take steps in the matter for payment of post-retiral dues to them. The petitioner has pleaded that in Succession Certificate Nos. 23 of 2003/28 of 2006, authority-slip has been issued for C.M.P.F., gratuity and amount under life-cover scheme to the petitioner. Sri Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already submitted succession certificate with the respondent authority on 26.4.2007. This fact is not disputed in the counter-affidavit, however, a stand has been taken that petitioner has not submitted application for payment of C.M.P.F. and gratuity. It needs to be recorded that post-retiral benefit of an employee is not a bounty rather, it is a statutory right of the employee. This fact is not disputed in the counter-affidavit, however, a stand has been taken that petitioner has not submitted application for payment of C.M.P.F. and gratuity. It needs to be recorded that post-retiral benefit of an employee is not a bounty rather, it is a statutory right of the employee. In the case of "Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others" reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 PLJR 458 (SC), it has been held that post-retiral benefits partake the nature of property under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and it can be denied to an employee only by following due process of law. On admitted facts, there is no response from the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields limited why the payment of post-retiral benefit, accrued on death of employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin has been delayed so abnormally. Accordingly, while rejecting challenge to order dated 15.3.2002, the Personnel Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, (B&K), Kargali, PO & PS-Bermo, District-Bokaro-respondent no. 5 is directed to calculate interest @ 6 per cent over the amount of C.MP.F. and amount of life-cover scheme payable to the employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin and ensure such payment within next 6 weeks. The surviving Class-I legal heir(s) of the employee-Fudia Devi @ Fudia Turin may make application for release of C.M.P.F. amount. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.