JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery, communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 by the Nodal Officer, Samadhan Cell, Kathara Area, CCL, whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that his name does not find mention in any service excerpts of his father, who was an employee of the CCL. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release death-cum-retiral benefit of his deceased father along with statutory interest as also the amount of life cover scheme at the present rate. 3. It is case of the petitioner that his father was appointed in the Central Coalfields Limited on 16.11.1988 and was working as a Piece Rated Mazdoor (P/R) at Jarangdih Colliery. However, he died in harness on 02.09.2008. The service book of the deceased employee was being maintained by the respondents in which name of mother, elder sister and grandmother of the petitioner has been mentioned but petitioner’s name has not been mentioned. After death of the deceased-employee, the petitioner’s mother duly informed the same to the office of the respondents and further applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds on 11.12.2008. However, the respondents sat tight over the matter for almost four years and no order was passed on pending application of petitioner’s mother during her life time. Subsequently, mother of the petitioner also died on 04.06.2012 waiting for her appointment on compassionate grounds. Even the amount towards gratuity and amount towards life cover scheme of the deceased employee were not paid to her. After death of his mother, petitioner filed an application dated 03.08.2013 followed by another application dated 15.06.2015 for his appointment on compassionate grounds and further an application for payment of amount payable to him towards gratuity as well as live cover scheme on account of death of his father. 4. It is further alleged that after filing of fresh representation dated 07.10.2015 before the Samadhan Cell of respondents – Central Coalfields Limited, a letter no. 4. It is further alleged that after filing of fresh representation dated 07.10.2015 before the Samadhan Cell of respondents – Central Coalfields Limited, a letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, has been issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery and duly communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 by the Nodal Officer, Samadhan Cell, Kathara Area, CCL, whereby it has been informed that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that his name does not find mention in any service excerpts of his father, who was an employee of the CCL. As claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds and for release of certain dues has been rejected by the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for his appointment on compassionate grounds as per NCWA and also for payment of gratuity and other benefits under the Statutes. It has further been argued by learned counsel that the grounds of rejection of case of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law as at the time of his appointment, petitioner was not even born and as such, there was no question of entry of his name in the service book. There is possibility that his father might have intimated the concerned office for entry of name of the petitioner but the same could not have been entered. After death of petitioner’s father, his mother duly applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds and for release of benefits but the same was kept pending for years and in the meantime, she died. Thereafter, petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds and for getting the unpaid dues of deceased employee, to which he is entitled in view of specific provisions and as such, this writ petition may be allowed by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner and to pay entire dues. 6. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Central Coalfields Limited vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the claims raised by him as his name does not find place in service excerpts of the deceased employee and his application was not filed within time. 6. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Central Coalfields Limited vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for the claims raised by him as his name does not find place in service excerpts of the deceased employee and his application was not filed within time. The delayed application cannot be entertained by the respondents. Admittedly petitioner’s father died in the year 2008 and application was made by the petitioner in the year 2013. The limitation period prescribed for making such application is 1½ years as per NCWA. Since there is apparent delay on part of the petitioner and as such, his application has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel further argues that compassionate appointment is not transferable and on that score also, case of the petitioner is not maintainable and cannot be considered by the respondents. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner’s mother had applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds and for release of dues amount within time. No response was made by the respondents and in the meantime she died. Occasion arose for making application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner only after her death and only when no response was given by the respondents on her application. It is not in dispute that petitioner attained majority in the year 2012 and it was only after attainment of majority, he could have applied and as such, rightly he applied on 03.08.2013. Delay is not attracted in the case of the petitioner as he could have applied only after attainment of majority. It is not a case that petitioner applied after 1½ years, which is the prescribed period of limitation. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited that petitioner’s case has been rejected on the ground of delay, is not accepted by this Court. The impugned letter no. It is not a case that petitioner applied after 1½ years, which is the prescribed period of limitation. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited that petitioner’s case has been rejected on the ground of delay, is not accepted by this Court. The impugned letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery, communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 clearly refers as under: “… … … In reference to above, this is to inform you that the name of Sri Bijay Digar does not appear in any of the record of service sheet of his father Late Manu Digar, Ex-P/R, Jarangdih Colliery.” Thus, what transpires that the ground of rejection of case of the petitioner was that his name did not find mention in any of the service excerpts of his deceased father. 8. The issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3258 of 2014 in the case o Mantu Saw Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others, wherein it has been clearly observed as under: “… … … Moreover, from perusal of provisions contained in Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement VIII, I do not find any stipulation that it is necessary that the name of the dependent of deceased employee must appear in the service book.” Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds and not releasing the dues amount of deceased employee merely because his name was not mentioned in service excerpts of the deceased-employee, is not tenable in the eyes of law. If name of dependent of the deceased-employee is not mentioned in service excerpts/ records kept in the office, it is incumbent upon the respondents to constitute a Committee to resolve the issue in view of Minutes of the Joint Consultative Committee Meeting held on 22.07.2008, held at CCL, Headquarters, Ranchi. Clause 2 of the said Minutes reads as under: “2. Modification of modalities of disposal of compassionate appointment cases under Para 9.3.0/9.4.9/ 9.5.0 of NCWA. Clause 2 of the said Minutes reads as under: “2. Modification of modalities of disposal of compassionate appointment cases under Para 9.3.0/9.4.9/ 9.5.0 of NCWA. Recommendation of the Committee constituted on this issue was explained by Sri Ramendra Kumar and it was decided that the document to be relied upon for scrutiny of application will be as under: (A) Official records documents:- (i) Service sheet service sheet excerpt (ii) Gratuity nomination form (iii) CMPF Records (iv) LTC/ LLTC Records (v) Pension Records under CMPS 98 (B) other non official documents: (i) Marriage Registration certificate issued by the Registrar; (ii) In case documents as above are not available, on representation of claimant, Dir.(Pers.) will constitute a committee to examine the claim and put up their recommendation for competent approval.” In the instant case, even the Committee was not constituted which is a laches on part of the respondents and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of mistakes and laches on part of the respondents. The law is well settled. 9. As far as petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is concerned, there is no dispute that his mother’s application was ever rejected by the respondents or monetary compensation as provided under Clause 9.5.0 (ii) & (iv) of NCWA was ever paid to her during her life time. Though claim of the petitioner’s mother for her appointment on compassionate ground was accepted but no orders were passed. This issue also fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1140 of 2013 in the case of Dablu Bedia Vs. The Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi and others wherein it has been observed as under: “… … … once it is found that the monetary compensation to the mother of the petitioner was not paid, in my opinion, the respondents cannot be permitted to take the plea that the petitioner was not eligible for enrollment in the live-roster. Further, merely because the petitioner was made to wait for 17 years when the impugned decision was communicated to him, such delay cannot be a ground to deny him, what lawfully should have been offered to him long back.” In the instant case, though it was orally argued that petitioner’s application for enrollment in the live-roster was not accepted as no application was made and as such, due to delay it was rightly rejected, but the impugned order of rejection is otherwise. The other grounds taken by learned counsel appearing for the respondents – CCL is also not accepted by this Court and not tenable in the eyes of law. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this court towards paragraph-20 of the counter affidavit and submits that so far as this case is concerned, the representation/ application of compassionate appointment, having been made after expiry of the prescribed limitation period of 1 and ½ years from the date of death of the employee, therefore, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. What is not in the impugned order, cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit. Law is well settled on this score also. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 , has clearly said that impugned order cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit. What is not in the order, cannot be substituted by way of counter affidavit. The same plea has been reiterated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid guidelines, judicial pronouncements, settled proposition of law, as well as facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order issued vide letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery, communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 by the Nodal Officer, Samadhan Cell, Kathara Area, CCL, is held to be not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. As a sequel of the aforesaid order, the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds and pay him all the legally admissible retiral dues, in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 12. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.