JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent Central Coalfields Limited. 2. Petitioner''S father died in harness on 19.12.1990 as a Category-II workman leaving behind his wife, 3 sons which include the petitioner and 2 daughters. As per the service excerpts at Annexure-1, petitioner was 12 years of age on 20.06.1987 and would have been 15 years and more at the time of death. On information supplied to the Employer as per the statements made at para 9, employees'' name was struck off from the rolls on 20.12.1990. As per the statement made at para 10 no application was made by petitioner''s relative or well-wishers. On the basis of verbal assurance that petitioner''s case would be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA, petitioner and his family members were waiting till petitioner attains the age of majority. He was not kept in live roster. No option was either exercised for keeping him in live roster nor was monetary compensation claimed on the part of his mother. As per the statement made by the petitioner at para 13, he applied in the prescribed format in the year 1996 for compassionate appointment. However, such application made in the prescribed format in the year 1996 has also not been annexed. This has been rejected by the impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 11.08.2011 issued by the Deputy Manager(Personnel) Sarubera Colliery. Therefore he has approached this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has mainly advanced the following submission:- (i) Petitioner ought to have been kept in live roster as he was 15 years of age at the time of death of the employee. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to do so in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vrs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & others reported in , (2007) 8 SCC 549 . Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1048 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-5).(ii) Application for compassionate appointment was not barred by delay as there was no time limit prescribed under NCWA in vogue at the time of death of his father. The first circular prescribing time limit of 6 months came on 12.12.1995, which cannot be treated as retrospective in nature. The first circular prescribing time limit of 6 months came on 12.12.1995, which cannot be treated as retrospective in nature. Therefore, the application was not barred by delay.(iii) The statement of the petitioner made at para 13 that he had made application earlier is not specifically controverted in the counter affidavit by the Respondent and should be treated as admitted. Here, it is pertinent to mention here that no copy of such application has been enclosed to the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that compassionate appointment on death of an employee in harness in terms of the bilateral agreement NCWA entered into between the Management and the Trade Union should not be defeated on such grounds of delay. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent has defended the impugned decision. She submits that there is a definite time period within which application for compassionate appointment is required to be made. Petitioner was minor at the time of death of the employee and not eligible for compassionate appointment. Under NCWA-V effective from 01.07.1991, the male dependant aged 15 years and above could be kept in live roster and offered employment on attaining the age of 18 years. On 19.12.1990, when the employee died there was no provision for keeping a minor dependant of a deceased employee dying in harness in live roster. Claim of compassionate appointment was made 6 years after the death of the employee and was time barred. The circular dated 12.12.1995 prescribed time limit of 6 months for making an application from the date of death. The claim had become stale even on the date when the circular dated 12.12.1995 was issued. This time limit has further been revised to 1 year by the circular dated 01.01.2002, 1 years by the circular dated 19.06.2003 and again by circular dated 19.03.2005, it has been made 1 year from the date of death of an employee. Now as per the circular dated 03.11.2009 the time limit for making an application has been extended to 1 years from the date of death. As such it is incorrect to contend that there was no time limit to make an application or that application could have been made even after indefinite length of time. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition, which should be dismissed. 6. As such it is incorrect to contend that there was no time limit to make an application or that application could have been made even after indefinite length of time. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition, which should be dismissed. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the relevant material facts borne on record, as taken note above. As noted above, the claim for compassionate appointment relates to the death of an employee occurring on 19.12.1990. For the first time, concept of live roster came into effect from 01.07.1991 under N.C.W.A.-V. As per the entries recorded in the service excerpts, petitioner may be aged 15 years or more at the time of death, but undisputedly, no option was exercised on behalf of the petitioner for keeping him in live roster or for monetary compensation by his mother in terms of Clause 9.5.0 Respondents have not placed any circular issued before 12.12.1995 prescribing a time limit for making an application. However, no application was either made by the petitioner, though he may have attained majority in the year 1993 itself till 1996. In view of Circular dated 12.12.1995, application for compassionate appointment could have been made within 6 months from the date of death. 7. Contention of the petitioner that it would not operate retrospectively to limit the period of application in case of death of an employee happening prior to 12.12.1995 would lead to absurd results. If such interpretation is accepted, dependant of an employee dying, say for example in the year 1994, could claim to make an application without any limitation of time even after 5 years or 6 years or 8 years. Once the Circular dated 12.12.1995 prescribed a time limit of 6 months from the date of death, it could govern such cases where cause of action was surviving and had not been rendered stale on account of long delay. In the present case, application was made after six years of death. Therefore, it was treated as barred by delay. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) para-16 to 18 more specifically in order to support the submission that the employer had an obligation to keep the minor dependant aged 15 years and above, as per N.C.W.A-V on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0. 8. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) para-16 to 18 more specifically in order to support the submission that the employer had an obligation to keep the minor dependant aged 15 years and above, as per N.C.W.A-V on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0. 8. The question whether option is required to be exercised or an application is required to be made by the dependant of the deceased for keeping the minor in live roster or for monetary compensation by the widow in terms of Clause 9.5.0 was examined in detail in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Vrs. Bhim Paswan & others in L.P.A. No. 424 of 2017 by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2018. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) was also relied upon by the respondent/writ petitioner. Learned Division Bench of this Court held that in the scheme of things under Chapter IX "Social Security" by the NCWA-VI, more specifically relating to the provisions under Clause 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 relating to compassionate appointment of the dependant of the employee dying in harness or for the purposes of keeping minor in live roster, conscious exercise of option is required to be made on behalf of the dependant of the deceased. Opinion of the learned Division Bench is quoted here under:- "8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts borne out from the records. Clause 9.5.0 has been placed under Chapter-IX ''Social Security'' under the National Coal Wage Agreement entered between the Management and Union. The Social Security Chapter provides for various beneficial schemes. Clause 9.1.0 provides for ''Life Cover Scheme''. Clause 9.2.0 provides for Workmen''s Compensation Benefits. Clause 9.3.0 provides for Employment to the dependants of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. Under Clause 9.3.2, employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker who dies while in harness and in so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment / payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. Clause 9.4.0 provides for employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. 9. Under Clause 9.3.2, employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker who dies while in harness and in so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment / payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. Clause 9.4.0 provides for employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. 9. Applicability of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) to the present case is the question raised in this appeal. As per Clause 9.5.0 (i), in case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- pm or employment irrespective of her age. Evidently, a conscious exercise of option has to be made by the female dependant to avail of such monetary compensation. Clause 9.5.0 (ii) provides that in case of death / total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment. In case she is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. Once again, it is evident that a conscious exercise of option has to be made by the female dependant to avail of either monetary compensation or employment. In this background, Clause 9.5.0(iii) envisages that in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skills and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation, as per rates at para (i) & (ii). This will be effective from 1.1.2000. 10. Reading of the instant provision in conjunction with the preceding provisions, referred to above, makes it clear that the employer has an obligation to keep a male dependant of a concerned worker aged 12 years and above on live roster in circumstances when no employment has been offered to a female dependant on exercise of her option. 10. Reading of the instant provision in conjunction with the preceding provisions, referred to above, makes it clear that the employer has an obligation to keep a male dependant of a concerned worker aged 12 years and above on live roster in circumstances when no employment has been offered to a female dependant on exercise of her option. As per Clause 9.3.4, dependant to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years, provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. The Employer may not offer employment to a female dependant for the aforesaid reasons i.e. physical unfitness or lack of suitability for employment. In that case, the male dependant of the concerned worker aged 12 years and above shall be kept on live roster and provided employment on attaining the age of 18 years commensurate with his skills and qualifications. Conscious exercise of option is therefore implicit in the scheme. In a given case, a female dependant may not be interested in availing of employment or keeping a male dependant of such a worker aged 12 years or above on live roster to be employed on attaining 18 years of age for various reasons including the availability of future prospects for better education and more lucrative career in life. Employer in such circumstances, cannot be expected to assume on its own and keep a male dependant of the concerned worker aged 12 years and above on live roster for giving him employment on attaining majority. 11. In the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) , appellant had applied for compassionate appointment on 25.10.1997 after the death of his father on 23.02.1997. But instead of keeping the dependant minor on a live roster, his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the very ground that he was minor at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, on attaining majority only two years after the death of his father, he again applied in a prescribed form on 26.09.1999 which was rejected by order dated 03.08.2000 stating that he was ineligible for employment as he was underage and his name was not kept in live roster and there was considerable delay in applying for employment by the dependant. It appears that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court at para-17 of the Report that the name of the appellant was to be kept on live roster till he attained the age of 18 years which the respondent did not perform. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge fell in error in holding that the writ petitioner''s name ought to have been kept on live roster after the death of his father in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of N.C.W.A-VI, though there was no such application on behalf of the writ petitioner for keeping him on live roster. When he made an application on 21.02.2012 and thereafter in the prescribed form on 12.02.2013, application had become time barred as it was made beyond the stipulated period of 18 months from the date of death of his father. In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find substance in the plea of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Appeal stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost (s)". 9. As is evident therefrom in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) , the minor had applied during minority for employment but he was not considered eligible being under age and not kept in live roster. Later on after attaining majority on 26.09.1999 when he applied in the prescribed format, it was rejected on the ground of delay as well. The Apex Court after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant therein, had observed at para 17 that in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA-VI, name of the appellant was to be kept on live roster till he attained the age of 18 years, which duty respondents failed to perform. It took unilateral stand that application has been filed in the year 1999 in prescribed form which was beyond time period of 6 months applicable at that point of time. In these circumstances, the Apex Court had held that it was unfair on the part of the Respondent Employer to raise such a plea for the first time in the counter affidavit in the writ petition. In these circumstances, the Apex Court had held that it was unfair on the part of the Respondent Employer to raise such a plea for the first time in the counter affidavit in the writ petition. If the appellant was under age, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to keep his name in live roster, which was not done. Evidently, the appellant Mohan Mahto did exercise his option by making an application during the period of minority despite which he was not kept on live roster nor given compassionate appointment later on after attaining majority. 10. In the facts of the present case, there are no documents on record to show that exercise of option was made on behalf of the petitioner or his mother for keeping him in live roster or for monetary compensation. The first application made for compassionate appointment was after 6 years of the death and was therefore held time barred. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention towards the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jamuni Kumari Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & others reported in , (2012) 1 JCR 334 (Jhr) where the claim for keeping the name of the petitioner in live roster was made after attaining the age of majority beyond 5 years from the date of death of the mother of the applicant. Learned Single Judge had quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. However, in view of what has been held in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Vrs. Bhim Paswan & others in L.P.A. No. 424 of 2017, this issue has been set at rest. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has at the end tried to seek reliance of a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vrs. Basant Bhuiya reported in , (2004) 2 JCR 112 in order to submit that delay in passing the order on claim of compassionate appointment cannot be put to the disadvantage of the applicant to the advantage of the employer. Basant Bhuiya reported in , (2004) 2 JCR 112 in order to submit that delay in passing the order on claim of compassionate appointment cannot be put to the disadvantage of the applicant to the advantage of the employer. In the present case though there has been delay on the part of the employer in rejecting the claim in the year 2011 but the application for compassionate appointment was made 6 years after death of the employee and was definitely barred by delay and had become stale. Under the scheme of compassionate appointment any such claim is to be made within a reasonable time unless specific time period is prescribed therein as the whole purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide succor and assistance to the dependant of the employee dying in harness and to secure a source of livelihood. However, if the family survives for long without any assistance and employment, claim for compassionate appointment itself become stale. Further, contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that statements made at para 13 do not stand controverted and therefore be deemed to have been admitted, does not merit acceptance (see Bharat Singh Vrs. State of Haryana reported in , (1988) 4 SCC 534 , para 13). 12. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order which deserves to be interfered in the writ jurisdiction by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.