JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, assisted by Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, assisted by Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2004 issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby the husband of petitioner No. 1 was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed from service ignoring the fact that the said employee was missing since 03.06.2000 from his company’s quarter at Dugda Colony, and in this regard in terms of its judgment & order, the learned court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Munsif, Bokaro has duly held that husband of the petitioner No. 1 has died as having civil death. Further prayer has been made for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground in place of his father, who had met with civil death and also to release all the consequential benefit to the heirs of the deceased employee. It is also prayed to quash the letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of life coverage scheme and employment of petitioner No. 2 was rejected. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner No. 1, late Amar Lal, was appointed on 10.01.1991 as General Mazdoor at Dugda Coal Washery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. While in service of respondent-company, the husband of petitioner No. 1 went missing since 03.06.2000 from his office quarters at Dugda Colony. After due search made by the petitioner as well as other family members and neighbours, when the whereabouts of the husband of petitioner No. 1 could not be known, the petitioner No. 1 duly informed this fact to respondent No. 4 on 16.07.2001. She also gave information to the local Police Station at Dugda on 03.02.2002 and immediately thereafter, gave second information on 04.02.2002 to respondent No. 4 regarding missing of her husband. In spite of that, the petitioners came to know that a departmental proceeding was initiated against Amar Lal i.e. husband of the petitioner No. 1 and in the said departmental proceeding an order dated 12.05.2004 was passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was dismissed from service, on the ground of his absence since 03.06.2000 from duty without giving any information. The petitioner No. 1 under the impression that her husband had died, since his whereabouts was not known for seven years from the date of his missing, she approached the respondents-authorities to release the arrears of wages, P.F., Gratuity of late Amar Lal and also to consider the case of petitioner No. 2 for employment on compassionate ground. But when no heed was given to her said request, she gave a legal notice dated 17.01.2008 to respondent No. 4 claiming the aforesaid arrears/payments. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 again made a representation on 15.04.2008 to the respondent No. 4 for providing employment to her but respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 09.05.2008 informed the petitioner No. 1 that she is not entitled for employment as her husband was dismissed from service of the respondent-company. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner no. 1 for self and on behalf of all her children, who were minors, filed a Title Suit No. 23 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Munsif at Bokaro for a declaration that her husband i.e. Amar Lal, who was an employee of the respondent-company, died as having met civil death and for other reliefs. The title suit was duly contested by the respondent-company and the same was finally decreed holding that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 had died a civil death and the suit was also decreed holding that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for pensionary benefits of his deceased husband in terms of judgment and decree dated 21.01.2012 and 27.01.2012 respectively. After passing of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner No. 1 made a representation before the respondent No. 4 to release all the benefits payable to her on account of death of her husband. When the respondents-authorities had not given any heed to the petitioner’s representation, she again gave another written representation dated 12.12.2012 to the respondent No. 4 along with the claim for appointment of her son, petitioner No. 2, in the respondent-company, on account of death of her husband. The respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 15.09.2014 informed the petitioner No. 1 that her claim for life coverage scheme as well as employment against the death of her husband cannot be considered due to dismissal of his deceased husband from the services of the respondent-company. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. The respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 15.09.2014 informed the petitioner No. 1 that her claim for life coverage scheme as well as employment against the death of her husband cannot be considered due to dismissal of his deceased husband from the services of the respondent-company. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of dismissal of the husband of petitioner No. 1 from service, on the ground of his absence from duty, is without any reason, erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that the initiation of proceeding itself was bad in law as the respondents were fully aware that the petitioner is missing and the entire proceeding was initiated behind his back and in an exparte proceeding the order of dismissal has been issued dismissing him from the service on the ground of his absence, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction holding that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 met civil death on account of he being missing since 03.06.2000 and the petitioner is entitled for the death-cum-retiral benefits on account of civil death of the ex-employee, as held by the Civil Court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and also in view of Cl. 9.3.2 of NCWA, the petitioner No. 2 is entitled for employment on compassionate ground, on account of civil death of his father, as declared by the Civil Court. But the respondents-authorities have not given any heed to her request. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment dated 03.08.2015 of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 330 of 2015 (Smt. Parden Oraon Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.) by which the Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the earlier judgment dated 13.07.2015 rendered by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 7438 of 2013 (Munni Devi Vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.) in which in identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to quash the order of termination in the case of an employee under the same respondents. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.) in which in identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to quash the order of termination in the case of an employee under the same respondents. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the instant writ application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to the rejected. He further submits that husband of petitioner No. 1, who was employed in respondent-company, was unauthorizedly absent from his duties w.e.f. 03.06.2000, for which he was issued a charge-sheet No. 307 dated 05.05.2001 asking him to join duties immediately, otherwise disciplinary action would be taken against him as per Cl. 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order. The notice was followed by a charge-sheet dated 17.04.2002. Subsequent to the aforesaid charge-sheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 12.05.2004, the petitioner was finally dismissed from service. This order was passed in the year 2004 and the same was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court after a delay of about 11 years and no cogent reason has been assigned by the petitioners for such delay. Learned counsel further submits that an amount of Rs. 38,538/- has been paid to the petitioner No. 1 as gratuity. So far P.F. claim is concerned, the petitioner is required to submit the claim in the prescribed form of the CMPF along with all other details such as Bank Passbook, Bank Name, Branch Name, Photographs, etc. Once all these documents are submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be processed by the respondents and forwarded to the Regional Commissioner, CMPF for disbursement of amount. As regards compassionate appointment is concerned, the request of the petitioner was considered as far back as in the year 2008 and the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 09.05.2008 has rejected the claim for compassionate appointment, on the ground that Amar Lal had been dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his case, has relied on the following decisions:- (i) State of J&K and Ors. Vrs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, [ (2006) 5 SCC 766 ]. (ii) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. [ (2009) 13 SCC 112 ] (iii) Santosh Kumar Dubey Vrs. Sate of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2009) 6 SCC 481 ] 6. Vrs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, [ (2006) 5 SCC 766 ]. (ii) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. [ (2009) 13 SCC 112 ] (iii) Santosh Kumar Dubey Vrs. Sate of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2009) 6 SCC 481 ] 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the factual aspects and also the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not come to his rescue and is of no help to him. It is not in dispute that compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule and appointment in public offices should be made on the basis of competent merits. The Hon’ble Court had rejected the case of compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and laches in applying form and as the applicant had applied after inordinate delay i.e. more than 12 years of death of his father, no appointment could be given but those judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The Hon’ble Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey (supra) though the question was left open whether time should be reckoned when seven years period under Section 108 of the Evidence Act had expired and however, for the purpose of deciding this case, assumption made that five years to be reckoned after seven years under Section 108 of the Evidence Act had expired. 7. Taking aforesaid proposition into account in the instant case, the petitioner has applied within time from the date of expiration of seven years from the date of death, i.e. the date when the case of his father declared to be a civil death by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction on 21.01.2012 and the seven years from the date of missing was 03.06.2007 and the application was made on 17.01.2008, which is within time. The permissible period of one-and-half year reckoned for the purpose of making application for compassionate appointment by dependents of the deceased. 8. The permissible period of one-and-half year reckoned for the purpose of making application for compassionate appointment by dependents of the deceased. 8. Considering the judgments rendered by this Court and in view of the fact that the departmental proceeding leading to termination of the petitioner’s husband would have no meaning in the eyes of law once declaration was made on the civil death of the employee by a competent Court and as such, dismissal of the petitioner’s husband from service cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground of termination in question, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of reasons and discussions made above. The facts of the present case are covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Munni Devi (supra), as the relevant material facts are more or less similar to the present case and hence, the impugned order dated 12.05.2004 dismissing the petitioner’s husband from service, as also rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment dated 09.05.2008, both issued by respondent No.4, are accordingly quashed. Letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of life coverage scheme and employment petitioner No.2 was rejected, is also hereby quashed. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid order, rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncement, I hereby direct the respondents to take a decision on the claim for compassionate appointment of petitioner No. 2 in accordance with law. Needless to say that petitioner No. 1 would also be at liberty to raise her grievances, if not redressed, relating to death-cum-retiral dues of the deceased employee. Let such decision relating to claim for compassionate appointment be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found fit for appointment, the appointment letter should be issued within a further period of one-and-half months thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands allowed.