JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as per the mandate of para-9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (for short ‘NCWA-VI’), which is binding upon the respondent-Management. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Father of the petitioner namely, Bhakhala B.P. was an employee of Central Coalfields Ltd. under Kalyani Project, who was appointed on 17.10.1971 and working as piece rated worker. While in service, he died in harness on 16.03.1997, leaving behind his wife, four sons and one daughter including the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that they all were dependent upon the earnings of his late father and after his death, they were thrown into the pool of starvation. As per the mandate of para-9.3.2 of NCWA-VI, respondents ought to have provide employment to one of the dependent of the deceased worker who died while in service. In pursuant to the provision of NCWA-VI, an application was submitted by the petitioner for his appointment on 30.09.1997. It is the specific case of the petitioner though he applied for employment within time, neither his case was considered nor any decision was taken on the representation of the petitioner and it was only in the year 2015, i.e. 28.02.2015, when petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act to know about the status of his representation dated 30.09.1997, he came to know that till date no decision has been taken. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a glaring example where a poor person has been harassed at the hands of the respondent-CCL for getting employment. Mr. Dubey argues that compassionate appointment is meant for giving protection to the family, whose earning member had died in harness. In the instant case, though an application was made in the year 1997 itself but no decision has been taken for decades. It has been further argued that very basis of compassionate appointment has been frustrated because no decision on the part of the respondent-Authorities is taken as yet. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. It has been further argued that very basis of compassionate appointment has been frustrated because no decision on the part of the respondent-Authorities is taken as yet. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL submits that admittedly no decision has been taken till date on the pending representation of the petitioner but simultaneously 22 years have elapsed and basic purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the family of the deceased employee has been frustrated as the deceased has overcome the stringent financial crisis. Mr. Mehta draws the attention of the Court towards counter-affidavit sworn by the Director (Personnel), respondent No. 2 himself, in compliance of the order dated 07.03.2019 and submits that the respondent-Company has now, in consultation with its learned Advocate and upon a meeting held on 25.03.2019, has taken a decision to issue strict directives to all Units/ Areas, etc. for punctual compliance of all applications within a time bound schedule, in light of the order dated 18.02.2019, passed in W.P.(S). No. 521 of 2019 (Most. Sumitra Devi and ors. Vs. CCL and Ors.). Leaned counsel very fairly submits that as the representation of the petitioner was pending in the office of Area Office, the Headquarter was unaware of the said representation and as such, the responsibilities could not have been fastened upon the Director (Personnel) of CCL. However, after order of this Court, a decision has been taken that in future no person can be harassed on the ground that no decision has been taken on the pending representation. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is not the right of a person, neither any right has accrued to any person to get himself appointed only because he has filed representation. The present petitioner has moved this Court after 22 years of death of his father and filing of representation. Admittedly, the representation was made for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has survived for 22 years. If soon after the death of his father, he had knocked the door of this Court and thereafter, inspite of the order of the Court no decision has been taken, the matter would have been otherwise. Admittedly, the representation was made for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has survived for 22 years. If soon after the death of his father, he had knocked the door of this Court and thereafter, inspite of the order of the Court no decision has been taken, the matter would have been otherwise. Here, in the instant case the petitioner has also remained silent for 22 long years. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:- “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions. 9. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already become overage having crossed the age of 35 years, there is no question of appointment on compassionate ground. 10. The respondent-CCL is directed to act upon in view of their own decision annexed at Annexure-B 11. Let a notification to that effect be issued and circulated to all the General Managers of the CCL so that as and when any representation is filed or received, a decision be taken on the said representation regarding compassionate appointment, monetary compensation or even other modes of employment or appointment, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation. The Management cannot be permitted to sit tight over the matter for long period. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be handed over the respondent-CCL for needful.