JUDGMENT : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pass a final order in respect of employment of her son on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.0 within a specified period and to pay all death-cum-retiral dues and pension with 18% interest within a specified period. Petitioner also prays for grant of exemplary costs and damages for the insensitive attitude of the respondents and also frustrating the genuine claim for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. This case is an example of arbitrary and oppressive behavior of the respondents upon the petitioner. It also reflects the insensitive attitude of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited. 3. The husband of the petitioner, late Baku Manjhi was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. He was a driller – Category IV Mazdoor. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 03.03.1998. He left behind his widow, who is the petitioner and his son. As there is a scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to the heirs of the deceased, on 15.05.1998, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. After proper verification from the unit level, her case was recommended by the unit level of the respondent and the same was sent to the headquarters at Ranchi vide letter dated 18.02.1999. The petitioner was assured on several occasions that her application was being considered, but, she was kept waiting as no order was passed. Time flew bye and the petitioner was aging. Thus, on 14.05.2010, the petitioner represented before the authorities and requested to consider the case of her son for compassionate appointment, in her place. After receiving the said representation, the Senior Personnel Officer of the Central Coalfields Limited wrote to the Staff Officer on 30.05.2010/03.06.2010 that the claim of compassionate appointment of the mother, i.e., the petitioner, is still in process and has not been finalized and in that view the mother has requested to appoint her son, so appropriate decision be taken so that the matter can be processed after receiving necessary permission. Both, the son and mother ran from pillar to post, but, nothing moved from the end of the Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner lastly made an application under the Right to Information Act about the status of the claim. Both, the son and mother ran from pillar to post, but, nothing moved from the end of the Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner lastly made an application under the Right to Information Act about the status of the claim. A reply was furnished, which suggests that the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee and the recommendation was also approved on 06.05.1999 and the papers were sent to the headquarters and the matter is still pending in the headquarters of the CCL and the respective Colliery/Unit is still waiting for the decision from the headquarters. The petitioner, thereafter, having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing this writ application praying for a direction to pass a final order in respect of the claim of employment of her son on compassionate ground and to pay entire death-cum-retiral benefits, which is due. 4. The respondent-CCL filed a first counter affidavit, which was sworn on 18.12.2017. The objection, which the CCL takes is that there are disputed question of facts and even otherwise the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute. In the counter affidavit, it is not denied that the date of death of the employee is 03.03.1998 and he died in harness. It is also admitted that immediately after the death, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment in the prescribed format on 25.08.1998. It is also admitted that the matter was kept pending till 2010 when because of physical disability, the petitioner requested the respondents to consider the case of her son for grant of compassionate appointment. They stated that the son cannot be granted employment as he has also attained / crossed the age of 35 years, which is the maximum age for giving employment. They stated that there is a dispute in respect of age of son of the petitioner as in some records he is more 35 years and as per the claim made, he was 21 years. The important objection is at paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, where the respondents state that due to passage of considerable period of time, since the date of death of employee, i.e., 03.03.1998, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. They, further propose that the petitioner can apply for grant of monetary compensation. The important objection is at paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, where the respondents state that due to passage of considerable period of time, since the date of death of employee, i.e., 03.03.1998, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. They, further propose that the petitioner can apply for grant of monetary compensation. In respect of retiral benefits, they say that CMPF amount to the tune of Rs.1,83,416/-has been deposited in the account of this petitioner on 28.01.2003. They submit that gratuity amount was paid in the month of November 1999. They further say that the pension has not been paid as no application has been received. 5. Thus, from the counter affidavit, one aspect is established that the application for grant of compassionate appointment has not yet been disposed of and the same is still pending. In the counter affidavit, they only deny the grant of compassionate appointment taking the sole ground that after 20 years of death no compassionate appointment can be granted. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the application, which was filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 1998, has not yet been disposed of. He submits that the respondents sat over the matter for long 20 years and frustrated the entire claim of the petitioner and now in the counter affidavit they have taken a plea that due to passage of time, the claim has been frustrated. She submits that this clearly suggests the respondents’ attitude towards the issue. She submits that the petitioner could have been easily appointed in the year 1998 itself and there was no impediment either legal or factual in appointing her. She submits that only because of the attitude of the respondents, her claim for appointment was kept pending. Because of passage of time, petitioner became incapacitated. She submits that no monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment was also offered at the appropriate time by the respondents. She submits that only when this writ application was filed, respondents have come up with a face saving action offering monetary compensation in lieu of appointment. She submits that the reply to RTI application will clearly suggest that till date the matter is kept pending at the level of the respondents. She submits that only when this writ application was filed, respondents have come up with a face saving action offering monetary compensation in lieu of appointment. She submits that the reply to RTI application will clearly suggest that till date the matter is kept pending at the level of the respondents. She also submits that even the claim for compassionate appointment of her son was also kept pending at the end of the respondents. Thus, she submits that son of the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground, as per her claim. 8. Counsel appearing for CCL argued that after 20 years of the death, no appointment can be granted. He submits that whatever may be the cause, but, admittedly 20 years have elapsed and after the lapse of 20 years, no compassion remains. Learned counsel, by relying upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey versus State of U.P., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 , Haryana SEB versus Hakim Singh reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , submits that if the family could survive for these long 20 years, there is no ground to grant appointment on compassionate ground. He submits that her son is not entitled to be appointed as his application was also made after a very long period from the date of death of the employee. He submits that the claim of the petitioner about the age of the son cannot be accepted, as if the same is accepted, son was a minor at the time of death of his father. He submits that on the contrary, as per the records of the Company, his age does not tally with the age disclosed by this petitioner and as per the records of the Company, now he has already attained more than 35 years and thus, he cannot be appointed. But, from the records, he submits that the application, which was made by the petitioner to appoint her and later her son on compassionate ground, has also not been disposed of by the Company. 9. Considering these arguments advanced by the parties, this Court passed a detailed order on 12.03.2019 and respondents were directed to file an additional affidavit. 10. An additional affidavit has been filed by the Director (Personnel) of the Company. 9. Considering these arguments advanced by the parties, this Court passed a detailed order on 12.03.2019 and respondents were directed to file an additional affidavit. 10. An additional affidavit has been filed by the Director (Personnel) of the Company. From the said affidavit, it is also clear that applications were kept pending by the respondents. No new facts have been brought in, rather they tried to explain the delay. 11. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing for the respondents tried to defend his clients with utmost vigil, but a lawyer cannot change the facts and improve the same, which has already been damaged by the Company. On query, he had to admit the fact that the application for grant of compassionate appointment is kept pending and he from the records, submits very fairly that this fact is also acknowledged by the respondents, which is evident from Annexure 4 series at page 22 of the writ petition, which is a communication of Senior Manager (Personnel) Topa Colliery to the Staff Officer (P&A), Kuju Area. 12. Thus, the undisputed facts, which emerges from the writ petition and the counter affidavit is that the husband of the petitioner died on 03.03.1998 Petitioner had made an application in the month of May 1998 for grant of compassionate appointment and in proper prescribed format on 25.08.1998, which is well within the period prescribed. The age of the petitioner, as claimed by the respondents, was 41 years at the time of death of the husband. As per National Coal Wage Agreement, which covers this issue of grant of compassionate appointment, she was well eligible to be appointed. It is also admitted that her application is still pending and the respondents are sleeping over the same for 20 years without disposing the same. 13. Compassionate appointment is granted to the family of an employee, whose sudden death creates a financial vacuum. To overcome this financial vacuum and to support the family, who suddenly looses the financial support, this compassionate appointment is granted. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted in absence of a scheme and the scheme has to be strictly followed. In this case, admittedly, there is a scheme and the petitioner was eligible as per the scheme to be appointed. Thus, there was no embargo in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 14. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted in absence of a scheme and the scheme has to be strictly followed. In this case, admittedly, there is a scheme and the petitioner was eligible as per the scheme to be appointed. Thus, there was no embargo in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal (supra) has held that whole object of grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. Further in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the family can survive and successfully face and overcome the financial difficulties, no case is made out for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, from the law, which has been laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that due to passage of time, the need for compassionate appointment diminishes and the claim gets frustrated. In this case, the employee died on 03.03.1998 and now more than 20 years have elapsed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted as the claim stood frustrated. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, admits that they are willing to pay monetary compensation from the next month of the application, which was made for compassionate appointment in August 1998 till she attains the age of 60 years, which, in fact, she has now attained. This payment, which they undertake to pay is according to a scheme. Thus, I direct the respondents to calculate the amount and pay the same to the petitioner within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of the order. 15. Now the question is whether by this order, the respondents, who are not being directed to grant compassionate appointment, are let off for their laches and their arbitrary behavior and the harassment, which they have meted upon the poor petitioner? Another question is whether the respondents who have kept the application for compassionate appointment pending for 20 years without deciding the same, and by their own inaction frustrating the claim of the petitioner, can be exonerated? 16. Respondent-CCL is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A State has to act with prudence and should have sensitivity. Their action on the face of it, should not be arbitrary, malicious and oppressive. 16. Respondent-CCL is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A State has to act with prudence and should have sensitivity. Their action on the face of it, should not be arbitrary, malicious and oppressive. Their action should not make their subordinates feel helpless. The State also cannot take benefit of their own inaction and if because of the inaction or arbitrariness of the State common person suffers, damages can very well be granted. An authority cannot reap advantage or benefit by their own inaction. In this case, as held earlier, it was but for the negligence and the indifferent attitude of the CCL, the petitioner is deprived of grant of compassionate appointment as the respondents themselves have sat over the matter for more than 20 years. The application for grant of compassionate appointment was made within time, but, the same was kept pending for 20 years. As it is well settled that an application for grant of compassionate appointment should be made without any loss of time, similarly, the same should also be disposed of and decided at the earliest without wasting any time subject to the delays, which is administrative in nature while processing the claim. In this case, admittedly, the application was filed immediately, without wasting any time, but the time consumed in processing the same is 20 years and even after passage of 20 years the application has not been decided. One cannot conceive that it will take 20 years to dispose of an application for compassionate appointment. Thus, it is the fault of the respondents for which the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1998 itself. So far as the monetary compensation is concerned, it is now that they have come up with the said proposal, that too after 20 years of death. If this type of attitude of CCL is encouraged, then on each and every application for compassionate appointment, they will sit over for long years and take shelter of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and will submit that after passage of long years, no compassionate appointment can be granted. Thus, the respondents CCL should not be allowed to reap benefit of their own laches and arbitrariness. They must be saddled with damages and costs. The damages should also be exemplary. Thus, the respondents CCL should not be allowed to reap benefit of their own laches and arbitrariness. They must be saddled with damages and costs. The damages should also be exemplary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Organo Chemical Industries & Another versus Union of India & Others reported in (1979) 4 SCC 573 has held that there is plurality of variants of the word damages. The said damages may be actual damage, civil damage, compensatory damage, consequential damage, contingent damage, continuing damage, double damage, excessive damage, exemplary damage, etc. etc. The essentials are (a) detriment to one by the wrongdoing of another; (b) reparation awarded to the injured through legal remedies; (c) its quantum being determined by the dual components of pecuniary compensation for the loss suffered and often not always a punitive addition as a deterrent-cum-denunciation by the law. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that exemplary damages are damages on an increased scale awarded to the plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his appropriate loss, where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud or wanton and wicked conduct on the part of the defendant, and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of his feelings, shame, degradation or other aggravation of original wrong or else to punish the defendant for his evil behaviour or to make an example of him for which reason, this type of damages are also called “punitive” or “punitory” damages. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243 has relied upon the observations made by Lord Hailsham in Cassel & Co. Ltd. Versus Broome [ 1972 AC 1027 ], wherein the principle has been laid down that “an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. It acts as a check of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. It acts as a check of arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes versus Barnard [ 1964 AC 1129 ] it was observed by Lord Devlin that “the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that public functionary, if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He, who is responsible for it, must suffer it. 18. Not only a malicious and oppressive action, which results in harassment, is abuse, but deliberate inaction, which causes harassment and deprives a citizen of their legitimate right, is equally an abuse and must also attract the same fate. Not exercising the powers vested which results in deprivation is also an abuse of the process of power. Harassment of common person by any public authorities is socially intolerable and legally impermissible. The harm is not only to the individual, but to the society as a whole as because if the oppressor is left scot free, he will be encouraged to continue with the same behaviour, which later on will travel beyond the boundary of each individual and infiltrate in the society. An ordinary citizen cannot resist the might of these authorities and succumb to the pressure and to the undesirable functioning (in this case non-functioning) of the authorities. 19. In this case, the action of the respondents in not disposing the application and keeping it pending for 20 years cannot be said to be bonafide. Because of this inaction, the petitioner could not get what she deserved. Here comes the duty of the Courts to safeguard the rights of the citizen and to instill faith. Therefore, is the award of damages and compensation for harassment, which not only gives solace to the individual, but helps in curing the evil and moreover, it acts as a deterrent, so that the authorities cannot think of repeating the same action towards others similarly situated and deprives them. 20. Therefore, is the award of damages and compensation for harassment, which not only gives solace to the individual, but helps in curing the evil and moreover, it acts as a deterrent, so that the authorities cannot think of repeating the same action towards others similarly situated and deprives them. 20. In the instant case, as held earlier, I find that the inaction on part of the respondents in not disposing of the application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is unpardonable. The respondents sat over the matter and till date has not disposed of the application, rather contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 20 years have gone by, thus, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment. It is unfair on the part of the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong, which should not also be allowed. Further, if they are allowed to go scot free, these inactions will continue and will increase by few folds to deprive the family of the poor workman, who will be left at a helpless state, who cannot even confront the might of the public sector authorities. Thus, this is a fit case to impose exemplary damages. In view of the aforesaid position, I direct the respondents-the Central Coalfields Limited to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh) to the petitioner. 21. Now, the question is whether the damages are to be paid from the coffers of the Public Sector Undertaking or should be saddled upon the person(s) for whom, this delay has been caused? 22. Central Coalfields Limited is a public sector undertaking, the money belongs to public at large and not to any individual. This public money cannot be allowed to be squandered with. Thus, I direct the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited to initiate an inquiry by appointing a committee comprising of high level officers and fix responsibility upon the erring officers for whose laches, the application was kept pending for 20 years. After proper identification and after giving opportunity to them, appropriate action be taken against them for recovery of the said amount proportionately. 23. After proper identification and after giving opportunity to them, appropriate action be taken against them for recovery of the said amount proportionately. 23. The amount of damages so imposed, should be deposited within three weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order before the Registrar General of this Court, who will disburse the said amount to the legal heirs of the deceased equally after proper verification and identification, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of deposit of the said amount. 24. The amount of monetary compensation, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, which the respondents in their counter affidavit have undertaken to pay, should be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ application stands disposed of. 26. Let a copy of this order be communicated through Fax to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.