JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner being elder son of late Chhatrabali Beldar a permanent employee of BCCL has called in question the compassionate appointment of his younger brother, respondent no.6 without any opportunity of hearing and that too behind his back and the petitioner has further prayed for cancellation of the appointment of respondent no.6 and to grant him compassionate appointment in place of respondent no.6. 2. The facts as has been delineated in the writ application in a nutshell is that petitioner's father was a permanent employee of the respondent-BCCL and was working as Shovel Operator at Dhanbad. While working as such father of the petitioner died on 30.10.2013 leaving behind the mother of the petitioner, three sons and two daughters. After death of his father, the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment which was subsequently followed by reminders. The petitioner was informed by the respondent to resolve the family dispute. Thereafter, two advocate notices were sent alongwith representations not to take any decision in favour of any dependent of deceased employee till the family dispute was resolved. The petitioner having come to know on the daily news paper Dainik Jagran that his younger brother, respondent no.6 has been given compassionate appointment, left with no alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner being the elder son ought to have been considered for the appointment on compassionate ground but the respondent without giving any opportunity to the petitioner has appointed the respondent no.6 which sans of natural justice is against all cannons of equity and fair play. 4. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been submitted that after death of late Chhatrabali Beldar, Shovel Operator the widow of deceased employee Smt. Fuleshwari Devi made a representation before the Management of the respondent company on 06.01.2014 seeking employment of younger son namely respondent no.6 in place of deceased husband in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement as per Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that widow of the deceased employee has also submitted an application form, attestation form, verification roll and other documents, which were certified by the B.D.O., Baghmara in favour of respondent no.6. It has further been submitted that widow of the deceased employee has also submitted an application form, attestation form, verification roll and other documents, which were certified by the B.D.O., Baghmara in favour of respondent no.6. That apart, the widow of deceased had also sworn an affidavit, whereby she had sponsored her younger son, respondent no.6 for employment in place of deceased husband in terms of relevant provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. In the said affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that the present petitioner was not dependent on the income of the deceased employee and he has been residing separately as evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. The copy of the National Coal Wage Agreement has been annexed with the counter-affidavit vide Annexure-C. It has further been submitted that in case of death of the deceased employee his wife is the first direct dependents of the deceased and therefore, on the basis of consensus amongst the family members, application for appointment of respondent no.6 has been processed and was granted by the competent authority on 04.12.2015 vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. 5. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.6, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that after the death of his father, the petitioner had not turned-up to take care of his widow mother and younger brother including the respondent no.6, therefore, the wife of the deceased employee/mother of petitioner has chosen to nominate her younger son for appointment on compassionate ground in place of her husband because since long he has been taking care of her and other family members and therefore, she has requested the project officer of the BCCL to appoint respondent no.6 as evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons stated hereinbelow:- (I) Undisputedly, father of the petitioner who was working as Shovel Operator died in harness. The appointment on compensationate ground is governed under 9.2.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement which interalia stipulates Clause 9.3.2 that employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. The appointment on compensationate ground is governed under 9.2.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement which interalia stipulates Clause 9.3.2 that employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. (II) In the case in hand, after the death of the employee, the widow wife submitted application for appointment in favour of respondent no.6 and the application was supported by affidavit and other relevant documents. Accordingly, the respondent on consideration of the application of the widow wife of the deceased employee considered for giving appointment to respondent no.6. The objective of appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the hardship due to sudden death of the bread earner of the family. Since, the petitioner being elder son, was residing separately and was not dependent upon the income of the deceased father as disclosed from the affidavit of the mother of the petitioner, no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the respondents in giving appointment to respondent no.6. Since, petitioner being the elder son has abdicated solemn duty to take care of widow mother and other family members after death of father by deserting them and living separately since long. Therefore, by his own conduct, he has extinguished his right for compassionate appointment. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.