JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the orders dated 27.06.2000 and 17.06.2004 (Annexures-5 & 9) and also for quashing the order dated 22.12.2011 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06/10.01.2012 (Annexure-12) by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been regretted and further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his employment on compassionate ground under para 9.3.2 of the NCWA. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The father of the petitioner namely, late Deo Lal Munda was a regular employee of the Rajarappa Washery Project of CCL and while in service, he died in harness on 01.05.1994, leaving behind his three daughters and one son. At the time of his death, the petitioner was minor. Before the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner also died on 21.10.1992 and since the father of the petitioner was the only earning member in his family, after his death, there was no one to look after them. However, with the help of their well-wishers/relatives they survived. After death of his father, his unmarried sister namely, Shushri Munni Kumari applied for settlement claim related to his father as also for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV in the year 1994 itself and in reply to her application, the Senior Personnel Officer, RWP informed her by letter dated 17.09.1994 that since her name was not mentioned in the service records of the deceased employee, it was not possible to process the case without obtaining the succession certificate from the competent Court. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that in absence of manpower and due to financial crisis, the petitioner and his sister could not move before the Court for succession certificate immediately after receiving the letter dated 17.09.1994. However, this petitioner including his sister moved pillar to post with a request to provide employment under Clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA-IV. When no heed was paid to their requests, petitioner made two representations dated 09.09.1999 and 15.11.1999 before the Project Officer, for considering his case for employment under para 9.3.2 of the NCWA-IV. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.06.2000, the Sr. When no heed was paid to their requests, petitioner made two representations dated 09.09.1999 and 15.11.1999 before the Project Officer, for considering his case for employment under para 9.3.2 of the NCWA-IV. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.06.2000, the Sr. Personnel Officer informed the petitioner that his case for compassionate employment could not be entertained by the competent authority since there was delay of 5 years in submitting the application for compassionate employment. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner made several requests for payment of legal dues but no heed was given to his request and vide letter dated 27.09.2001, he was once again advised to furnish the succession certificate. After receiving the aforesaid letter, the petitioner made a representation on 25.07.2001 before the General Manager, Rajarappa, mentioning therein that he has lost his parents and at the time of death of his father, he was minor and his two sisters were married and one was unmarried but her name was not mentioned in the service records of the deceased employee, hence her request for compassionate appointment could not be proceeded. However, after attaining the majority, he made representation in the year 1999 for his appointment on compassionate ground and also for payment of all the legal dues of his deceased father. The petitioner also filed a succession case bearing No. 107 of 2002 and the Addl. Judicial Commissioner (Fast Track), Ranchi vide his order dated 08.12.2003, issued succession certificate in the name of this petitioner, which he has immediately submitted before the respondents-authorities for necessary compliance. 6. After receiving the succession certificate, the gratuity amount, unpaid wages as also the arrears under NCWA-V has been paid to the petitioner sometime in the year 2005 but the payment in respect of LCS has not been paid to the petitioner till date in spite of his repeated requests. Immediately after receiving the succession certificate, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.12.2003 along with the succession certificate before the respondents-authorities, for considering his case for compassionate appointment. In response to his letter, the Sr. Immediately after receiving the succession certificate, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.12.2003 along with the succession certificate before the respondents-authorities, for considering his case for compassionate appointment. In response to his letter, the Sr. Personnel Officer sent a letter dated 17.06.2004 informing the petitioner that his representation was sent to S.O. (P &R) Rajarappa Area for further needful but the same has been returned with the observation that his case has already been turned down by letter dated 06.06.2000 due to delay of more than 5 years in making the application and the same has been communicated to him by letter dated 27.06.2000 and there is no sufficient ground for re-opening the case at this stage. Hence, this writ petition. 7. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Staff Officer (P&A) Rajarappa Area informed the petitioner vide his letter dated 06/10.01.2012, that his appeal to CMD/CCL for considering his employment under para 9.3.0 of NCWA on account of death of his father, has been considered by the General Manager (P & IR) CCL and vide his letter dated 22.12.2011, it has been informed that since the case of the petitioner comes under the purview of time barred application, the same has been regretted by the competent authority. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mrs. M.M. Pal strenuously urges that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner on extraneous ground. The case of the petitioner cannot be termed as a case of belated claim as application for appointment under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA was submitted before September, 1994, which will be evident from the letter dated 17.09.1994, wherein it was categorically mentioned that regarding payment of dues related to his father and his service under Clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA-IV will only be processed on production of succession certificate and accordingly, the petitioner waited for the succession certificate, which was obtained only in the year 2003 and as such, the petitioner made request for consideration of his case in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 9. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner made several representations before the respondents-authorities stating specifically that application for employment under clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA was submitted in the year 1994 itself, immediately after death of his father but it was the respondents who did not pass any order in want of succession certificate but when the same was produced, the case was rejected on the ground of belated claim, which is contrary to the record and as such, the case of the petitioner needs reconsideration. Learned senior counsel submits that compassionate appointment is always guided by scheme and there is no time limit in the scheme, however, circulars have been issued from time to time fixing the period for application. Learned senior counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Case Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd. [ 2007 (4) JLJR 144 (SC)]. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court on the records of the case and submits that the application was made immediately after the death of his father i.e. before September, 1994 and the father of the petitioner died in harness on 01.05.1994 and thereafter, immediately after obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities but illegally and arbitrarily it was rejected on the ground of delay of 5 years. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Das argued that earlier the sister of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment but no date has been mentioned on it. She was advised to get the succession certificate, which was never produced before the respondents-authorities. The petitioner again applied for compassionate appointment on 09.09.1999, which was rejected on 27.06.2000 itself on the ground of delay of more than 5 years. The petitioner applied for succession certificate in the year 2002, which was obtained in the year 2003 and again a request was made for reconsideration of the appointment, which was regretted on 17.06.2004 (Annexure-9 to the writ application). 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that after seven long years, this writ application has been preferred and on this score itself, it is fit to be rejected. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that after seven long years, this writ application has been preferred and on this score itself, it is fit to be rejected. Learned counsel submits that the claim of appointment is not transferrable. The case of the petitioner was treated to be a fresh application and was admittedly filed after five years of the death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has survived for more than 5 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and thereafter, have approached this Hon'ble Court after delay of 7 years from the date of rejection of the order, no compassion is left in this case and as such, the writ petition fit to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and after perusing the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner requires re-consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law. Reliance of the respondents' counsel in case of Thomas Purti v. Central Coalfields Ltd. pronounced on 30.07.2016 in W.P.(S). No. 4183 of 2014, passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court, does not come to rescue of the respondents. It is fully distinguishable. In the instant case delay is only of 5 years and in the case on which the respondents rely is the case of delay of 15 years. In the instant case, it was the respondents-authorities who demanded for succession certificate, which was produced after obtaining the same. It is not a case that petitioner applied for appointment for the first time after obtaining succession certificate and that too also after a delay of 5 years. The petitioner applied within time and due to the laches on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 , has held as under:— “11. The petitioner applied within time and due to the laches on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 , has held as under:— “11. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in Mrutunjay Pani v. Narmada Bala Sasmal, AIR 1961 SC 1353 , wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim ‘Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet’ (No party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). 12. In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127 , the accused-army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time-barred. This Court referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.) p. 191 wherein it was stated; “….it is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in Courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure”. 13. It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. 13. It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong.” 13. Admittedly, the petitioner and his sister applied for succession certificate as per the direction of the respondents and immediately after they received the same, they turned up submitting the same which cannot be termed to be a delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The matter therefore needs reconsideration by the respondents. 14. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2000 and 17.06.2004 (Annexures-5 & 9) and also the order dated 22.12.2011 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06/10.01.2012 (Annexure-12), are hereby quashed and the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to take a final decision on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Needless to say that the entire exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found fit for appointment on compassionate ground, letter of appointment to that effect be issued within a further period of four weeks.