JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter no.11226 dated 7/12.08.2002 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer to provide compassionate appointment on the basis of Circular No.375 dated 21.01.2012. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The father of the petitioner late Jagarnath was employed under the respondent who was appointed on 01.09.1959 having CMPF No. D/732332 and the name of the petitioner appeared in the service excerpts of his father in the column of son. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 27.11.1996. Soon after the death of his father, petitioner informed the respondents and requested for compassionate appointment. When no heed was paid, petitioner on 03.03.1998 made a representation before respondent no.4 for his appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father. The petitioner also submitted the family member certificate issued by the Block Development Officer dated 08.09.1998. Petitioner was asked to appear along with 7 others on 28.01.1999 along with two witnesses and death certificate of the deceased. It is stated that vide Memo No.756873 dated 22.06.1999 the petitioner was asked to appear on 25.06.1999 for verification of the certificates by respondent no.5. Again the petitioner was asked to appear before the Area Screening Committee along with others on 27.08.2001 with two witnesses and relevant documents. Further, the petitioner along with others were again asked to appear before the Area Screening Committee on 16.10.2001. It was said that the case of the petitioner has been sent to the Headquarters for verification and approval. Surprisingly vide memo no.11226 dated 7/12.08.2002, the office of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer/ Project Officer, Bhurkunda informed the petitioner that his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his case was time barred and he has applied after four years from the date of death of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahani submits that the petitioner's father died on 27.11.1996 and petitioner made an application on 03.03.1998 and as such it cannot be said to be time barred or applied after four years from the date of the death of his father. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahani submits that the petitioner's father died on 27.11.1996 and petitioner made an application on 03.03.1998 and as such it cannot be said to be time barred or applied after four years from the date of the death of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have thus come forward and issued and Circular No.375 dated 21.01.2012 by which it was decided to reconsider those cases on compassionate ground which was earlier rejected on the ground being time barred and as such the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Circular dated 21.01.2012 which requires and deserves active consideration by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents rejecting the case of the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit Kumar Das appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has approached this Court after 11 long years and for which there is no explanation regarding delay of 11 years and as such on the ground of belated claim, the case of the petitioner is fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and taking into consideration that respondent-CCL have themselves floated the Circular No.375 dated 21.01.2012 whereby they had decided to reconsider those cases on compassionate ground which was earlier rejected on the ground of being time barred. The Circular No.375 dated 21.01.2012, the following modalities/norms were followed for reconsideration of the cases: (1) Those cases of compassionate appointment where the employee died on or after 12.12.1995 and the cases of the compassionate appointment of their dependents, family members have been rejected on the ground of delay beyond six months from the date of death of the employees, shall be considered. However, the delay involving only one and half year from the date of death of employee will be taken up. However, the delay involving only one and half year from the date of death of employee will be taken up. (2) The extension of time limit is made in view of the decision in the earlier JCC meeting dated 22.07.2008 whereby and whereunder the time limit was extended up to 1 and ½yeas and the said decision of the JCC dated 22.07.2008 is effected retrospectively with effect from 12.12.1995 for reexamination of cases regretted on belated ground. (3) The dependent/applicant will represent for consideration of his case along with recent Pass post size photographs to the General Manager (P & IR), Ranchi through proper channel and unit/area authorities will forward the representation to the Head Quarter after proper examination. In case the case file is lying at Area/unit, the same may be sent along with the representation and due recommendation as per set norms. The present status of the family is also required to be given due consideration with documentary evidence as being done in normal cases. (4) In case of female dependents, who have crossed the age limit of 45 years on the date of issue of administrative order, their case will be considered only for payment of monetary compensation as per the provisions contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement. 7. I am of the opinion that respondent-CCL should reconsider the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the relevant Circular dated 21.01.2012 and the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 . In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07/12.08.2002 is hereby, quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh in view of the aforesaid observations.