JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under para 9.4.2 of the NCWA Act. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner, late Ganga Ram Manjhi, who was working on the post of Cat-II in Giddi ‘C’ Colliery of Argada area, Hazaribag died in harness on 16.07.1994, which necessitated the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment under the specific provision of 9.4.2 of NCWA Act on 13.04.1995 annexing all relevant documents. It is averred that thereafter, the respondents made enquiry from Registrar, Gomia regarding death certificate of the father of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on direction of respondent-authority, he appeared before Area Level Committee on 12.08.1997 along with original death certificate, educational certificates and two permanent employees of the company, as required. But, the respondents-authorities slept over the matter and even upon the representation dated 16.07.1996 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent-authority, it did not evoke any response. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has submitted application for compassionate appointment well within time, as per provision of NCWA Act and the respondents-authorities only in order to deny the benefits of compassionate appointment is trying to distort the fact and are breaching the provisions of bipartite agreement. Furthermore, it is only because of the inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioner is suffering for the last two decades, hence, the principle of delay is not applicable in the case at hand. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of “Satnarayan Choudhary versus Central Coalfields Limited & Ors reported in 2009 (1) JCR 654 (Jhr.)”. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents, basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the employee died on 16.07.1994 and the petitioner submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.08.1996 i.e. after two years, which was rejected in the year 1999 vide letter dated 8/11.08.1999 itself and now after about two decades, the prayer of the petitioner has become time barred. Furthermore, a circular was issued on 12.12.1995 whereby respondent-company fixed the time limit of six months for submitting application for compassionate appointment, which was later on again extended for one year vide circular dated 01.01.2002. Furthermore, a circular was issued on 12.12.1995 whereby respondent-company fixed the time limit of six months for submitting application for compassionate appointment, which was later on again extended for one year vide circular dated 01.01.2002. It has further been submitted that it is well settled proposition that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial relief to the distress family members of the employee and by lapse of about two decades, the object of the compassionate appointment has been defeated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of record, in particular Annexure 2 to the writ application it appears that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 13.04.1995, within one year of death of his father and the respondents has nowhere specifically denied Annexure 2. So far contention of the respondents that circular dated 12.12.1995, whereby respondent-company fixed the time limit of six months for submitting application for compassionate appointment, has fettered the respondents to consider his case; it is pertinent to note here that the both the employer and employee are bound by bipartite agreement between them i.e. National Coal Wages Agreement, hence, any circular issued by the company, supplementing and withdrawing any provision or part of the provision mentioned in the NCWA Act, shall not in any way affect the provision made in NCWA Act/Agreement, that too in a case which is detrimental to the employee. 6. From perusal of the record, it further appears that the respondents-company also enquired the genuineity of the death certificate of the employee submitted before them vide letter dated 12.12.1995 and thereafter directed the petitioner to appear before them with original death certificate, educational certificates and two permanent employee of the company vide letter dated 5.8.1997 as evident from Annexure 3 and 4 to writ applications respectively, which the petitioner fulfilled. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has no leg to stand on the ground of delay, accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has no leg to stand on the ground of delay, accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. So far the principle reiterated by learned counsel for the respondents that purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to give immediate financial relief to the distress family members of the employee has now frustrated, is concerned; in the facts and circumstances it is not applicable in the case at hand as delay is not attributable to the petitioner. 8. In the net result, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take a fresh decision regarding appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, considering the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.