JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Mr. N.K. Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das appears on behalf of the respondents-CCL. 3. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to provide employment to her son Panchmam Kumar under 9.3.0 after quashing the letter dated 24.2.2013 and 18/19.7.2014 (Annexures-3 & 9) issued by the respondent no. 6. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of M/s Central Coalfield Limited working as Coal Loader in Simana Mines of Bhurkunda Colliery. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 8.7.2012 and after his death, the petitioner filed an application to the respondent no. 6 for employment under 9.3.0 to her son Pancham Kumar within time and was called for interview alongwith other dependents of the deceased employee on 9.11.2012 with required documents and in compliance to that letter, the petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee. It has further been stated that vide letter dated 2.4.2013 informed the petitioner that the employment of her son has been objected on the ground that the name of Pancham Kumar did not appear in the service record of the deceased-employee, but the said letter was issued after lapse of seven months. The petitioner after receipt of letter dated 2.4.2013 filed an application on 16.12.2013 to the respondent no. 6 along with documentary proof i.e. Admit Card, Registration Slip, Adhar Card, Voter I.D. Card which shows that the name of the petitioner's husband as Dhaiya Oraon, who belongs to scheduled caste by caste Oraon. The said application was forwarded to respondent no. 4 and the petitioner again called before the Screening Committee of the Area Level alongwith other dependents of the deceased-employee and after scrutiny of the said application it was recommended and forwarded to the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 7.3.2014. It has further been stated that in the remark column, the name of his son Pancham Kumar, wife's name, Somari Devi and her nomination in CMPF and gratuity. It has been further stated that all these facts were not considered by the respondents and the case of the petitioner's son has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily for appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 24.2.2013 and hence, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. It has been further stated that all these facts were not considered by the respondents and the case of the petitioner's son has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily for appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 24.2.2013 and hence, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.K. Sinha submits that the respondent- authorities have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and hence the order dated 24.2.2013 and 18/19.7.2014 (Annexures-3 and 9) are fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submits that Pancham Kumar is son of late Dhaiya which is apparent from the family relationship issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh on 16.8.2012. Learned counsel further submits that the delay and laches on the part of the respondents cannot be ruled out, as the consideration of the petitioner was done after lapse of more than two years and no reasons have been assigned for that. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled for employment under 9.3.0 of NCWA as name of her son appeared in service record issued by the respondents in the year 1987 along with other documents issued by the State Government, Central Government and Examination Board, which goes to prove that the rejection of the application on compassionate appointment is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribes and she is an illiterate lady and wholly dependent on Pancham Kumar and as such, the case of Pancham Kumar should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and draws the attention of the court towards paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel submits that as the name of the petitioner does not find place in the Service Excerpt and as such the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected in absence of the name of Pancham Kumar in the available Service record of the deceased employee. 7. Be that as it may, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the name of her son Pancham Kumar is reflected in the Service Excerpt. 7. Be that as it may, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that the name of her son Pancham Kumar is reflected in the Service Excerpt. The respondent-authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and as cumulative effect of the rules and guidelines, the impugned order dated 24.2.2013 and 18/19.7.2014 are hereby quashed and matter is remanded back to the respondents-CCL for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the fact that the name of the petitioner finds place in the Service Excerpt. 9. With the aforesaid observations the writ petitioner is disposed of.