JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to send to this Hon’ble Court all the records appertaining to the service of the petitioner which was to be granted, but which had been returned by the Headquarter vide its letters dated 26.07.1994/ 12/22.11.1994 to the Manager of Mandman Colliery and after which services on compassionate ground was not granted to the petitioner Sitaram Bhuian in place of his wife, who died in harness, namely, late Bijola Bhuian, Ex. Stack Loader of Mandman Colliery. (ii) Thereafter further pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the son of the petitioner, namely, Kanhai Bhuian for employment in the services of the Colliery in lieu of his mother Bijola Bhuian, who died in harness, but for which employment was prayed for on behalf of the father Sitaram Bhuian, but subsequently, papers were returned and now, his father has crossed the age, as such, employment is being demanded for the son of the petitioner Sitaram Bhuian according to the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement. (iii) For a further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith grant employment to the son of the present petitioner, namely, Kanhai Bhuian according to the provisions of NCWA as his mother Bijola Bhuian died while in service Mandman Colliery.” 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ application is that the wife of the petitioner, namely, Bijola Bhuian, was as Stacker/ Loaders in Mandman Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The said Bijola Bhuian was first married with one Jagdish Bhuian and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with one son, Prakash Bhuian. Jagdish Bhuian died in the year 1982 and thereafter, she performed her second marriage with the present petitioner in the year 1984 and out of their wedlock Kanhai Bhuian was born in the year 1985. The said Bijola Bhuian was first married with one Jagdish Bhuian and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with one son, Prakash Bhuian. Jagdish Bhuian died in the year 1982 and thereafter, she performed her second marriage with the present petitioner in the year 1984 and out of their wedlock Kanhai Bhuian was born in the year 1985. Unfortunately, the said Bijola Bhuian had died in harness while on duty, leaving behind the following members as her legal heirs/ dependents:- (a) Sitaram Bhuian (her husband), (b) Prakash Bhuian (her son from her first marriage), (c) Kanhai Bhuian (her son from her second husband-petitioner herein). After the death of Bijola Bhuian, payment of CMPF amount was also paid to the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for his employment on compassionate ground as per the provisions contained in Cl. 9.4.3 of the NCWA, wherein, there is a specific provision that in case of death of an employee while in service, employment is to be given to the dependent of the said employee. After submission of application by the petitioner, the Manager of Mandman Colliery vide letter dated 28/29.07.1993 was apprised of the entire scenario with regard to the appointment to be given to the present petitioner after the death of his wife. Finally, by letter dated 26.07.1994/19/22.11.1994, the entire file of the present petitioner with regard to the compassionate appointment was returned to the Personnel Manager (I/c.), Mugma Area. Vide note sheet No. 160 of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., it was clarified that the matter of employment on compassionate ground, has not been delegated to the General Manager of the concerned Area. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the present petitioner died in harness while on duty and in spite of his best efforts for grant of compassionate appointment, the same could not be finalized and ultimately, the petitioner became overage because of negligence and laches on the part of the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents-authorities being the creatures of the statutes cannot act beyond four corners of the same. The respondents-authorities cannot be allowed to sit tight over the matter for granting employment to the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner became overage. It is submitted that the respondents-authorities being the creatures of the statutes cannot act beyond four corners of the same. The respondents-authorities cannot be allowed to sit tight over the matter for granting employment to the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner became overage. Learned counsel further submits that the NCWA has a binding effect upon the parties, who have put their signatures and hence, since the petitioner has become overage, his son is entitled for employment under specific provisions of NCWA. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was entitled for employment under Clause 9.4.3 of the National Coal Wages Agreement. The petitioner represented before the competent authority of the respondents and also to the Minister of Coal, to provide appointment to his son, Kanhai Bhuian, but till date, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter for granting appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court towards Annex. 9 & 10 of the writ application and submits that it is admitted by the respondents that Kanhai Bhuain was born from the wedlock of Bijala Bhuia and Sitala Bhuia in 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA), the son of the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as there is a provision for keeping the name of the minor on live roaster and to consider after attaining the majority. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Smt. Bijola Bhuian was murdered on 18.01.1987 and in connection to her murder, her husband Sitaram Bhuian (the petitioner) was remanded to the judicial custody in respect of G.R. Case No. 28 of 1987 (corresponding to S.T. Case No. 66 of 1987). Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide its order dated 16.06.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide its order dated 16.06.1989. During her service tenure, late Bijola Bhuian submitted “LTC/ LLTC Declaration Form” for the Block Year 1983-86, wherein following names were mentioned:- (a) Bijola Bhuia-Self-33 years (b) Prakash Bhuia-Son-13 years (c) Marani Bhuia-Mother-56 years (d) Aklu Bhuia-Father-62 years However, in the year 1990, this petitioner has claimed that he is the husband of late Bijoal Bhuian and according to the provisions of NCWA-III, he submitted his claim for compassionate appointment upon death of his wife while on duty of ECL on 10.08.1989. In support of the same, the petitioner had also sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Asansol, wherein it has been stated by the petitioner that he had married with the wife of late Jagdish Bhuian i.e. the deceased employee-late Bijola Bhuian on 2nd Feb., 1984. In the said affidavit it had also been stated that Jagdish Bhuian is the first husband of late Bijola Bhuian and he died on 03.10.1982. But, Bijola Bhuian, during her entire service tenure, never disclosed these facts before the respondents-authorities and hence, the above facts are not found mentioned in any of her official service records maintained by respondents-authorities. There is discrepancy in the age of the petitioner, as mentioned in the court’s order and in other papers submitted by him, while claiming for compassionate appointment. On account of such confusion about the genuinenity of the claim, the employment file was returned to the concerned Colliery Authority for verification of genuinenity of the petitioner. The petitioner was requested to submit fresh valid documents vide letter dated 15/18.10.2008 but he did not submit any documents in this regard and has not responded to any of the quarry made by respondents-authorities. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the respondents-authorities. Further, the petitioner was not interested for his employment because he was unable to do the strenuous job due to his ill health. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a belated representation on 25.03.2011 requesting for compassionate appointment of his son, Kanhai Bhuian against the death of his wife, Bijola Bhuian in the year 1987. Further, the petitioner was not interested for his employment because he was unable to do the strenuous job due to his ill health. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a belated representation on 25.03.2011 requesting for compassionate appointment of his son, Kanhai Bhuian against the death of his wife, Bijola Bhuian in the year 1987. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for compassionate appointment after a period of 27 years from the date of death of his mother, who died in 1987 itself and the application was made for appointment of his son by the petitioner in 2011 i.e also after 24 years. It is submitted that the employment can only be provided to the dependents in lieu of death of an employee when a dependents fulfill the norms and criteria as prescribed in NCWA prevalent at the relevant time. At the time of death of Bijola Bhuian, NCWA-III was in operation, and according to its provision, a candidate should be 18 years of age for getting employment on compassionate ground. The claim of Kanhai Bhuian is not acceptable as he was only 2 years old at the time of death of Bijola Bhuian and not comes under the provisions of NCWA-III. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is gross delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate ground to his son and admittedly, the application has been made after 24 years from the date of death as the mother died in 1987 itself and further applied for appointment on compassionate ground in 2011. The petitioner has also approached before this Court after 27 years of the death of the employee. This itself is sufficient ground for rejection of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate grounds, is to provide succor to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an antithesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an antithesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved. By now 27 years have passed and as such there can be no surviving claim for compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable in the eyes of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vrs. Anil Badyakar & Ors., reported in 2009 (13) SCC 112 had taken note of several reported judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- 6. ...For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the case of MMTC Ltd. Vs. Pramoda Dei reported in 1997, 11 SCC 390 it is observed by the Court : SSC p. 393, para 4 :- “4 ... As pointed out by this Court, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment..” In the case of S. Mohan V. Govt. of Tamilnadu reported in 1998 (9) SCC 485 the Court stated that: (SCC p. 487, para 4) :- “4. … The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. … The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported in 2004 (7) SCC 265 it was observed by the Court that : (SCC p. 268, para 4) :- “4. … It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.” Insofar as delay in approaching the authorities for such appointment is considered by this Court in Union of India Vs. Bhagwan Singh reported in 1995 (6) SCC 476 has held as under:- : 8. It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September, 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12.09.1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable.” In the case of Haryana SEB Vs. Naresh Tanwar reported in 1996 (8) SCC 23 it was stated that Para 9 :- “9. Naresh Tanwar reported in 1996 (8) SCC 23 it was stated that Para 9 :- “9. It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.” In the case of State of U.P. Vs Paras Nath report in 1998 (2) SCC 412 the Court has held that in Para 5:- “5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are rules providing fur such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as 17 years in the present case.” The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 7. In the instant case, the employee died in harness in the year 1987 and after a long squabble by the dependants of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that father has become overage, the son who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate ground. The request was refused on the ground that nearly after 27 years from the date of death of employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependant of the deceased employee. 8. The request was refused on the ground that nearly after 27 years from the date of death of employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependant of the deceased employee. 8. In my considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with the aforesaid judgments particularly Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . As a cumulative effect of the settled principles of law, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and as such the same is accordingly, dismissed.