JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.09.2013 contained in memo no.Dy.GM (M)/POBHA/Estb./13/3874 issued under the signature of Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery by which the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on a totally false and frivolous ground that the petitioner is not genuine wife of the deceased. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Husband of the petitioner namely Dinesh Rajwar was appointed under the respondent in view of the V.R. Scheme of his mother Smt. Janki Kamin, employee as ExPR in Dhori Colliery/unit under the respondent no.3. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was mentioned as wife in the Attestation Form furnished by the late husband. Husband of the petitioner was appointed as Face Crew trainee and posted at B.T.T.I., Bhurkunda vide office order No. PD/BRK/SFVRS/Training/99/4019 dated 05.10.1999. In pursuance to the aforesaid order (Annexure-3), the petitioner's husband was posted at B.T.T.I. and reported “ON JOB TRAINING” which would be evident from the office order dated 08.10.1999. The petitioner's husband completed training period successfully at Mine “B” Bhurkunda Colliery and thereafter he was released from Mine “B” Bhurkunda to B.T.T.I. Bhurkunda w.e.f. 01.09.2000 vide office order dated 31.08.2000 (Annexure-5). Petitioner's husband completed one year training period at B.T.T.I. and appeared at proficiency test on 06.09.2000 and further the late husband was temporarily posted in Mine “B” of Bhurkunda Colliery for the purpose of “ON JOB TRAINING”. Late husband was directed to be paid their monthly stipend @ Rs.2500/-per month till they remain there for the purpose of “ON JOB TRAINING”. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner was an employee under the respondent no.1 and working at Bhurkunda. It is further stated that husband of the petitioner was admitted at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi on 09.06.2001 for his treatment and in course of treatment he died on 04.07.2001 leaving behind his wife (i.e. the present petitioner) son and mother. As the petitioner is a illiterate person, the matter was persuaded by the Union concerned within time. In the meeting dated 23.01.2003, it was resolved as Agenda No.46 for getting the name of dependent of late Dinesh Rajwar for ascertaining the real position. As the petitioner is a illiterate person, the matter was persuaded by the Union concerned within time. In the meeting dated 23.01.2003, it was resolved as Agenda No.46 for getting the name of dependent of late Dinesh Rajwar for ascertaining the real position. The Block Development Officer, Petarbar, Bokaro issued certificate of family members of petitioner dated 13.09.2001 certifying that petitioner is wife of late Dinesh Rajwar, who died on 04.07.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted several certificates (Annexure-10 series) to show that she is the genuine wife of late Dinesh Rajwar. It is further stated that vide Annexure-8 as Agenda No.46, the case of petitioner was ignored for appointment under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. for want of detail information though sufficient information was given to the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2007 which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 25.05.2009 observing therein: “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, respondents are directed to take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” In compliance of order of this Court, petitioner made several representations but no decision was taken by the respondent regarding her appointment. Even a Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No.696 of 2013. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition the respondent vide memo no. Dy. GM(M)/POBHA/Estb./13/3874 dated 12.09.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner intimating the petitioner that she cannot be given compassionate appointment as one Sri Kishan Rajwar has requested for employment and that the petitioner is not genuine wife of late Deinesh Rajwar and as such she cannot be given employment in lieu of the deceased employee. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent C.C.L. has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner though she is fully entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. Learned counsel further submits that other than the petitioner and her son who is aged about 15 years there is no other son of late Dinesh Rajwar and new story has been developed on frivolous complain to frustrate the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. She further argues that petitioner's son is minor and had never represented for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner has been turned down without adhering Annexure-8 & 10 which has ample proof to show that petitioner was the dependent wife of the deceased and without giving any opportunity of being heard, relying on frivolous complain, her claim has been turned down arbitrarily. Learned counsel further submits that rejection of the prayer of the petitioner after 13 long years on a frivolous and anonymous complain is not tenable in the eyes of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondents have turned down. The rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment is unjustified and also smacks malafied intention of respondents. 4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the C.C.L. submits that highly disputed question of facts with regard to the identity/genuinity of the petitioner is involved in this writ petition which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and the petitioner should approach Industrial Tribunal for redressal of her grievance. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case the deceased employee died on 04.07.2001 therefore, the limitation of one year prescribed by circular dated 01.01.2002 would be attracted herein as limitation of one and half years came into effect w.e.f. 27.11.2002 by Circular dated 19.06.2003. Learned counsel for the C.C.L. further argues that as there was one representation received on 12.07.2009 from one Kishan Rajwar as the only son of deceased employee and that his mother has also expired. The application cast a cloud of suspicion over the genuinity of the petitioner as the widow of the deceased employee and as such the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the impugned letter dated 12.09.2013. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties it transpires that rejection of the petitioner as apparent from the impugned order is based on two grounds: (i) Husband of the petitioner was not a permanent employee of C.C.L. (ii) Petitioner is not genuine wife of deceased employee. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties it transpires that rejection of the petitioner as apparent from the impugned order is based on two grounds: (i) Husband of the petitioner was not a permanent employee of C.C.L. (ii) Petitioner is not genuine wife of deceased employee. It transpires from the records that the petitioners late husband Dinesh Rajwar was appointed on the post which was permanent in nature though after completion of training, he was posted on Job Training for further posting and in the meantime he expired on 04.07.2001. From the appointment letter issued by the respondents at Annexure-2 dated 07.07.1999 Clause 1 and 4 mentions that employee would be governed by the service condition of the standing order applicable on C.C.L. employees and the appointment was found fit on medical and physical verification and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner's husband was not a permanent employee of the company. The rejection order nowhere reflects that even any opportunity was given to the petitioner to make her position clear regarding the genuineness of the claim regarding wife of late husband Dinesh Rajwar. If an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have been in a position to explain and satisfy the respondents regarding her genuineness. The claim of the petitioner was rejected illegally and arbitrarily without adhering to the cardinal principle of natural justice. The stand of the respondent is fit to be quashed and set aside on this score itself. 6. Going through the relevant documents on record and to the averments made in the counter affidavit regarding the rejection of claim on the point of limitation, the contention of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somdev Kapoor Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.; 2014(1)JBCJ 213 SC which reads as follows: “Rules which are prevalent on the date when application is considered are to be applied and not the date when application is made.” The stand of the respondents are misconceived and not in accordance with law and as such this contention of the respondents are turned down and fit to be brushed aside. 7. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines standing orders, I am of the considered view that the contention of the respondent CCL is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order at Annexure-12 dated 12.09.2013 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.