ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is the second round of litigation towards a claim of compassionate appointment by the petitioner, son of the deceased employee who died in harness on 29th January 1987 while working on the post of Fireman under Govindpur Colliery, BCCL. His mother got appointment on compassionate grounds on her application vide Annexure-6 dated 18th July 1991 but could not avail of it on account of a handicap. Her representations made in 1996 and 1998 explaining her handicap and asking for engagement of the petitioner, her son, on compassionate grounds on attaining majority in the year 1998 were declined by the respondents. Petitioner had approached in W.P.(S) No.247/2009 for seeking compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter which was assailed in L.P.A. No.107/2009. Learned Division Bench on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances took note that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death and the mother who was offered appointment was incapable to discharge it being a lady of 32 years and prima-facie suffering from handicap. Learned Division Bench also made a comment on the respondents that such appointment for the post of Wagon-Loader was purposely offered to the mother of the petitioner to create a condition of impediment so that she could not avail the benefit of compassionate appointment. She was not examined despite her appearance on the appointed date and time. Petitioner then being a minor could not seek appointment on the compassionate ground. Further learned court also noticed that the petitioner’s claim for appointment is highly belated as he raised his claim after attaining majority in the year 1998. Petitioner’s representation was pending before the authority. Learned Division Bench, taking note of the fact that the representation is pending before the authority, disposed of the appeal with a direction to the respondent-management to consider his case in the aforesaid light. It was also observed that if the authorities come to a conclusion that the offer of appointment was denied to the mother of the petitioner purposely, then the petitioner be treated of having succeeded in making out a case of compassionate appointment in his favour. 3. On these observations, the case of the petitioner was examined by the respondents and finally rejected by the order impugned at Annexure-4 dated 20th July 2011 passed by the General Manager, Govindpur Area. 3. On these observations, the case of the petitioner was examined by the respondents and finally rejected by the order impugned at Annexure-4 dated 20th July 2011 passed by the General Manager, Govindpur Area. Respondents have held that at the relevant point of time there was no provision to keep the minor below the age of 15 years in live roster for providing employment in future. Petitioner’s mother had been offered appointment but after lapse of several years she submitted that in her place her son should be provided employment. She had also not informed the management that she is a handicapped person while making the application. Petitioner had approached the Writ Court after lapse of 22 years from the date of death in 2009. Respondents were of the opinion that there was no intention on the part of the management to deprive the petitioner’s mother of a job by providing job of a Wagon-Loader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents both have argued against and in support of the impugned decision more or less on the basis of the facts recorded herein above. Counsel for the petitioner has further added that the application made by the widow on 16th May 1987 Annexure-5 clearly stated about her handicap. There is no case of suppression on her part, though respondents deliberately offered her a job of Wagon-Loader which she was incapable to perform. The observations made by the learned Division Bench hold good. Respondents cannot escape from the scathing remarks made on their conduct and attitude. Denial of compassionate appointment in such circumstances defeats the purpose and object for which it is conceived. Therefore, the impugned order deserves interference. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL has harped on the grounds of delay in raising cause of action for the first time in 2009 after 22 years of the death. According to him, even the application made in 1998 was after 11 years of the death and only upon attaining majority by the petitioner. Petitioner’s mother had failed to appear before the management for medical fitness neither she informed about the handicap at the time of application. 6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties in the light of the facts recorded herein above and also the observation of the learned Division Bench in the case of the petitioner. 7. Petitioner’s mother had failed to appear before the management for medical fitness neither she informed about the handicap at the time of application. 6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties in the light of the facts recorded herein above and also the observation of the learned Division Bench in the case of the petitioner. 7. Compassionate appointment was claimed by the mother and granted by the respondents in the year 1991 on the death of the employee in 1987, though on the post of Wagon-Loader when prima-facie the widow mother of the petitioner appeared to suffer from handicap in her hand. But claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner upon attaining majority in 1998 was definitely after 11 years of the death of the employee. There was no provision at the relevant point of time for keeping the minor in live roster. This came into effect under National Coal Wage Agreement from 1st July 1991. Respondent could not have kept the petitioner on live roster in absence of such provision. After the observation made by the learned Division Bench, case of the petitioner has been examined afresh with a finding that the management had not deliberately deprived a job to her mother by offering her the job of Wagon-Loader. They have also taken the plea of huge delay in raising such a cause of action. 8. In the scheme of compassionate appointment which is governed by the policy of the employer, such claim is to be made within a time limit as it is intended to provide succor to the dependent of the deceased employee dying in harness and to prevent them from falling into the state of destitution. After about 25 years of the death and now about 31 years there from the claim of the petitioner itself has become stale. As such on being examined on merits and the principle governing the cases of compassionate appointment, this court does not find good grounds to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.