JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. I.A. No. 10494 of 2018 I.A. No. 10494 of 2018 is an application for condonation of delay of 1 day in filing this appeal. 2. Having gone through this application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. We accordingly condone the said delay. 3. I.A. No. 10494 of 2018 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 663 of 2018 4. The appellant before us is the son of a deceased employee of Central Coalfields Limited. The original employee had died while in service on 17th February, 1999. Claim for appointment on compassionate ground was made through an application on 1st November, 1999. We are apprised by the leaned counsel for the coal company that at that point of time such compassionate appointments were guided by the Social Security Chapter of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (NCWA-VI). It is also admitted position that at that point of time, an application for consideration of the case of a dependant of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment was to be made within six months from the date of death of the original employee. This was not done on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner within the aforesaid timeframe. His plea was rejected for this reason by an order passed on 7/8th October, 2002. Subsequently on 21st January, 2012, a new circular came into existence. The main object of such circular was to extend the date of making of application for appointment on compassionate ground. We reproduce below the relevant clauses of the said circular, bearing No. PD/MP/9.3.0/J.C.C/Belated application/375:- “1. Those cases of compassionate appointment where the employee died on or after 12.12.1995 and the cases of compassionate appointment of their dependent family members have been rejected on the ground of delay beyond six months from the date of death of employee, shall be considered. However the delay involving only 1 1/2 year from the date of death of the employee will be taken up. 2. The extension of time limit is made in view of decision of the earlier JCC meeting dtd. 22.07.2008 whereby and where under the time limit was extended up to 1 1/2 years and said decision of JCC dtd. 22.07.2008 is effected retrospectively w.e.f. 12.12.1995 for re-examination of cases regretted on belated ground. 3. 2. The extension of time limit is made in view of decision of the earlier JCC meeting dtd. 22.07.2008 whereby and where under the time limit was extended up to 1 1/2 years and said decision of JCC dtd. 22.07.2008 is effected retrospectively w.e.f. 12.12.1995 for re-examination of cases regretted on belated ground. 3. The dependent/applicant will represent for consideration of his case along with recent passport size photograph to the General Manager (P & IR), Ranchi through proper channel and unit/Area Authorities will forward the representation to head quarter after proper examination. In case the case file is lying at Area/Unit, the same may be sent alongwith the representation and due recommendation as per norms. The present status of the family is also required to be given due consideration with documentary evidence as being done in normal cases. 4. In case of female dependent dependents who are crossed the age limit of 45 years on the date issue of administrative order, their cases will be considered only for payment of monetary compensation as per provision contained in the National Coal Wages Agreement.” 5. Upon coming into operation of the said Circular of 2012, the appellant claims to have had made an application. This is disputed by the employer-CCL. It is not in dispute, however, that on 18th July, 2016 a fresh application was made to the Director Personnel of C.C.L. It does not appear that the matter had progressed in connection with that application. Under those circumstances the writ petition was brought by the appellant, out of which the present appeal arises. The learned First Court had rejected the plea of the writ petitioner holding:- “5. By now it is also well-settled that the scheme for compassionate appointment must be implemented in terms of the scheme. The respondents have pleaded that pursuant to the decision contained in letter dated 21.01.2012 the petitioner did not submit a fresh application and it was only on 18.07.2016 when the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. In their affidavit dated 08.05.2018 the respondents have pleaded that only those cases which were rejected on the ground of delay beyond 6 months but less than 1 1/2 years were considered in terms of the decision taken by the Coal Company as reflected in letter dated 21.01.2012. 6. In their affidavit dated 08.05.2018 the respondents have pleaded that only those cases which were rejected on the ground of delay beyond 6 months but less than 1 1/2 years were considered in terms of the decision taken by the Coal Company as reflected in letter dated 21.01.2012. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-M/s CCL has extended employment to the candidates who had submitted fresh applications beyond 1 1/2 years from 12.01.2012 and perhaps have crossed the efficiency bar. 7. May be such decisions have been taken by the respondents, but then those are not under challenge in the present proceeding. Moreover, an illegal order cannot be made foundation for seeking parity in employment. Except in cases where a male dependant is kept on live roster, and may be in cases where both parents of the minor child had died, claim for compassionate appointment must be made through an application or proforma, if any prescribed by the employer. On admitted facts, petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been submitted more than 4 1/2 years after a decision was taken by the respondents for reconsideration of the cases for compassionate appointment which were rejected on the ground of delay. 8. In the above facts and for the reasons indicated hereinablve, I am not inclined to interefer in the matter, and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.” 6. Before us it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the Circular of 21st January, 2012 does not specify any time limit for making fresh application. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned First Court, CCL has taken a point that the mother of the appellant also was employed by the coal company and the appellant was not wholly dependant on earning of his deceased father. But the factum of the employment of the appellant’s mother had subsequently been retracted and that retraction is not in dispute before us. The only point thus which remains to be considered by us is whether the delay of four years for making fresh application subsequent to issue of the Circular dated 21st January, 2012 is fatal or not. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that cases of several similarly situated persons had been considered beyond the specified time limit, but his case was left out from such reconsideration. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that cases of several similarly situated persons had been considered beyond the specified time limit, but his case was left out from such reconsideration. 8. On behalf of the coal company argument has been made that as no representation had been made within reasonable time by the appellant, there was no occasion to consider such plea. It has also been urged that the appellant has crossed 45 years of age which makes him ineligible for compassionate appointment as per the prevailing NCWA. The Circular of 21st January, 2012 does not specify any time limit for making fresh application for reconsideration of the earlier rejection order. No such stipulation has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the coal company. For this reason we are not inclined to accept the CCL’s stand that the application of the appellant ought to be rejected on the ground of delay. Point was sought to be argued on behalf of the CCL that as the original order of rejection of 2002 was not under challenge, there could not be fresh application as the appellant had accepted that position. This argument is fallacious. Right of the appellant to make an application afresh flows from the said Circular dated 21st January, 2012. This circular extends the initial date of making application from 6 months to 1 1/2 years. The appellant accordingly satisfies the basic requirement for reconsideration of his claim. Such right accrued independently on the basis of the Circular of 2012. The appellant’s right for reconsideration could not be said to have been foreclosed altogether by the earlier rejection order as the employers themselves brought a new circular for reconsideration of belated claims. 9. In such circumstances, we decline to accept the view of the learned First Court which stands reflected in the passages we have quoted above in this judgment. We concur with the reasoning of the learned First Court that an illegal order cannot be a foundation for making subsequent illegal order, but we do not find any ex facie illegality in giving employment to individuals who may have had made delayed application for compassionate appointment on the basis of the Circular of 2012. We concur with the reasoning of the learned First Court that an illegal order cannot be a foundation for making subsequent illegal order, but we do not find any ex facie illegality in giving employment to individuals who may have had made delayed application for compassionate appointment on the basis of the Circular of 2012. If the coal company is consistently following a policy of considering fresh representations after coming into operation of the Circular of 2012 by extending the time for consideration of plea of compassionate appointment by the dependents of the deceased employee, a deviation cannot be made in a single case. We hold so particularly since the Circular of 2012 does not lay down any time limit within which fresh application is required to be made upon coming into operation of the said Circular. There is no cut-off date for making fresh representation. In such a situation the practice adopted by the coal company would have to be adhered to in the absence of specific circular or office instruction to that effect. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal and direct the appropriate authority of the CCL to reconsider the appellant’s case. Such reconsideration shall be made in terms of the 2012 circular. On points on which the circular is silent, the practise being followed by the coal company shall be applied. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. We keep open the question of the appellant having crossed the age bar. That issue shall be considered by CCL as per the prevailing norms. 10. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.