JUDGMENT : 1. The learned First Court directed consideration of the writ petitioner’s application for employment on compassionate ground in Central Coalfields Limited. The father of the writ petitioner passed away on 21st June, 2012. On his death, his widow made an application for appointment of her elder son, which was rejected, the son having crossed the age limit, but the widow of the deceased employee was advised to seek monetary compensation. This rejection order was passed on 11th January, 2013. The writ petitioner made out a case that on 27th May, 2013 her own application for compassionate appointment was made by her mother. Subsequently, another representation, which the writ petitioner contends was a reminder thereof, was made on 27th June, 2016. The writ petition was instituted on 31st August, 2016, as the writ petitioner’s plea for relief went unredressed. The learned First Court held: “Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents for non-consideration is that the petitioner has applied on 27.06.2016 and as such it is a belated claim after more than four years and the contention of the respondent that he has applied on 27.05.2013 has been disbelieved and said to be a manufactured document. Going through the documents annexed as Annexure-5 series, I am of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is not well founded as one application is of 27.05.2013 and the second representation dated 25.07.2016 is the reminder of the earlier application of 27.05.2013. It is not open to the respondent to accept the representation at their own sweet will and discard the other which are not in their favour. This Court is fully satisfied that if the respondents were to discard the representation, they had to discard all the representations and pick and choose method for accepting the representations cannot be applied. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment in view of the claim floated by N.C.W.A Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A clearly speaks about employment of one dependent of the workman who died while in service.” 2. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment in view of the claim floated by N.C.W.A Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A clearly speaks about employment of one dependent of the workman who died while in service.” 2. Contention of the appellant is that the appellant never received the representation or application of 27th May, 2013 and before it could get a chance to examine the application dated 25th July, 2016, the writ petition was filed. 3. The direction of the learned First Court is in the nature of remand order, but the appellant is aggrieved by the finding of the learned First Court that the second representation dated 25th July, 2016 was only a reminder of the earlier application. If there was a pending application made on 27th May, 2013, then the writ petitioner would come within the zone of consideration for compassionate appointment, but if the representation was made for the first time on 25th July, 2016, then she would be ineligible having exceeded the time limit as contemplated in National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. As regards the order for remand, we are not inclined to interfere, but in our opinion the appellant should get a chance to examine whether any application was made on 27th May, 2013 or not. 4. The appellant’s contention before us is that their records do not reveal any such application. This is essentially a dispute on fact. We, accordingly, direct the appellant to examine the writ petitioner’s claim, but in course of such examination, they shall be entitled to examine also as to whether any application was received by them on 27th May, 2013. In the event such an application is received, then appropriate step shall be taken under the prevailing National Coal Wages Agreement and if not, then steps shall be taken upon considering the said Agreement. The writ petitioner must have opportunity of hearing at the time of examination to be made by the appellant as per direction of this Court. 5. The Letters Patent Appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.