ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.305 of 2016 dated 19th May, 2016, whereby the petition preferred by respondent no.1 was allowed and the direction was given to this appellant, who is original respondent to consider the case of the respondent-female legal heir of the deceased employee on merit for compassionate appointment. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the father of respondent no.1 expired on 27th March, 2005 when he was serving with this appellant as Class-IV employee-Driver. The eldest legal heir of the deceased father was respondent no.1 (original petitioner), who was as on date of death of the father of the original petitioner was 12 years and one month age. 3. It appears from the National Coal Wage Agreement that the name of minor is to be kept in live roster so that as and when they attains the majority, the compassionate appointment can be given. 4. It appears from the facts of the case that respondent no.1 attained the age of majority in the year, 2011 and in the very same year on 25th April 2011, respondent no.1 (original petitioner) preferred an application for compassionate appointment. This application has been rejected by this appellant vide order dated 27th January, 2014 (Annexure3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) mainly on the ground of delay because for application permissible time limit for compassionate appointment is one year whereas, the application preferred by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was after six years of the date of death of the father of respondent no.1. This is not a valid ground on which the claim of respondent no.1 can be rejected mainly for the following reasons:- (a) As per National Coal Wage Agreement 9.3.5, the name of the legal heir, who is a minor should be kept in a live roster. (b) Respondent no.1 is the eldest legal heir of the deceased Paitu Toppo. There cannot be any discrimination by this appellant that only a male legal heir will be given employment and no female can be given employment because in the eye of law there is no difference between the two. (b) Respondent no.1 is the eldest legal heir of the deceased Paitu Toppo. There cannot be any discrimination by this appellant that only a male legal heir will be given employment and no female can be given employment because in the eye of law there is no difference between the two. (c) No sooner did the majority is attained by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) in the year, 2011 she applied for compassionate appointment because as on date of death of her father i.e. on 27th March, 2005, her age was 12 years and one month. During minority she cannot get employment and upon attaining the age of majority, immediately the application has been preferred and hence, there is no question of any delay whatsoever arises on the part of respondent no.1. On the contrary, even if earlier an application had been preferred, and even if the appellant wanted to give employment, no such compassionate appointment could have given by this appellant unless respondent no.1 attains the age of majority and hence, there is no delay on the part of respondent no.1 because the statute never permits minor to do work. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant (original respondent no.1) to decide the case on merits of the original petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) which shall be paid by this appellant to respondent no.1 within a period of six weeks from today.