JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondent to appoint him on compassionate ground on Class-IV post. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father, who was working as Truck Khalasi at Central Saunda Colliery in the District of Hazaribagh under the Central Coalfields Limited, died in harness on 24.01.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1998, but since at that time, he was minor, the management has assured him to consider his case when he will attain the majority. After attaining majority, the petitioner has applied on 31.01.2000 for appointment on compassionate ground, which was not considered on the ground that he had applied beyond the period of limitation. The said decision was taken by the authority on 06.11.2002 (Annexure-5). 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent-C.C.L. has formulated a scheme known as National Coal Wage Agreement, para-9.3.2 whereof speaks that if a regular employee working under the C.C.L. dies in harness, one of his/her dependents would be given appointment on compassionate ground, if he is found to be eligible. Hence the National Coal Wage Agreement being beneficiary scheme, taking a lenient view the petitioner ought to have been given compassionate appointment and the C.C.L. Authorities should not have gone into the technicalities like the period of limitation etc. for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the Central Coalfields Ltd. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, by submitting that it is not in dispute that National Coal Wage Agreement is to provide appointment on compassionate ground to one of the members/dependents of the diseased employee but the management of CCL has come out with a circular providing therein that the application for getting appointment on compassionate ground is to be filed within a certified period and at the time when father of the petitioner has died i.e. on 24.01.1998, the limitation period was 6 months. According to him, the petitioner has filed due application after passes of the period of 6 months and therefore his case has been rejected. According to him, the petitioner has filed due application after passes of the period of 6 months and therefore his case has been rejected. He contends that even if the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father then also for keeping him in live roster, application should have been filed within a period of six months as per the period of limitation, provided afresh by the decision taken by the competent authority of the respondent management. He further submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the CCL management but on the ground of limitation his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide order dated 25.10.2002 which is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit which the petitioner has not assailed and after lapse of 13 years he has invoked the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such on the ground of latches, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. He further submits that the spirit of the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement is to provide compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee, so that due to the sudden demise of the bread earner, the family need not be made to starvation but in the instant case the dependent of the deceased employee has survived for so many years after 1998 and hence no discretionary power may be exercised in this case otherwise the very principle of providing appointment on compassionate ground will be frustrated. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of the material available on record and on appreciation of the rival submissions, it is evident that the CCL management has formulated a decision in the name of National Coal Wage Agreement wherein the provision has been made under Column-9.3.2 to provide compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee, who dies in harness. 7. It is also evident from counter affidavit that the competent authority of the CCL management has taken decision for prescribing a period of limitation for making an application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground and in this case, father of the petitioner having died on 24.01.1998, the limitation period operates on the relevant date was of 6 months as per the circular, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 in the counter affidavit. 8. 8. The petitioner claims to be the son of the Hinduwa who was working as a Truck Khalasi in Central Saunda Colliery, District-Hazaribagh Borka Saunda Area, who died in harness on 24.01.1998 and as per the submission of the petitioner, at that time he was minor since he was 16 years of age. However, he claims that he had made application immediately after the death of his father but he has not annexed any supporting document to substantiate this argument. The respondent-management has denied this aspect of the matter by taking plea that the petitioner has made application for getting appointment on compassionate ground but the application was beyond the period of 6 months and as such taking decision on 25.11.2002, the management has rejected the claim of the petitioner but the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the aforesaid decision of the authority for several years rather after lapse of 13 years the instant writ petition has been filed. 9. There is no dispute in the settled position of law that compassionate ground cannot be by way of an alternative mode of appointment rather the same is an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India and which is to be given on the basis of scheme formulated by the employer to provide immediate relief to the dependent of the deceased employee who has died in harness, so that the dependents of the deceased employee may not be put to starvation. 10. The CCL Management for this reason has formulated a decision for making application within a period of 6 months. However, it has been extended from 6 months to one year thereafter one and half year but at that time when death of father of the petitioner has taken place i.e. on 24.11.1998, the period of limitation was 6 months and admitted position as per impugned order is that the petitioner has made application after the period of 6 months since this has not been disputed by the petitioner. 11. 11. This Court after taking into consideration the purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground and also taking into consideration the fact that the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner on 25.11.2002 which has not been assailed before any appropriate forum and after 13 years the instant writ petition has been filed, refrains itself from exercising the discretionary power for issuing direction to the respondents and therefore there being no merit, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.