ORDER : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 21.04.2014, passed by learned Central Government Industrial No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 55 of 2001, whereby learned Tribunal has directed the Petitioner-Management to provide employment to dependent brother of a deceased workman namely Rajendra Singh. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, Rajendra Singh was employed under petitioner-Management to the post of peon and while in service he died in harness on 16.02.1984. After his death, his mother namely, Sushila Devi applied for employment in the year 1984 but as there was family dispute relating to disbursement of death-cum-retiral benefits and other benefits of late Rajendra Singh, it was not possible for the petitioner-management to offer employment to any person and hence, the proposal for appointment was dropped. Thereafter, Smt. Sushila Devi moved the competent Court for getting succession certificate and the dispute in the family was finally settled in the year 1997. As per settlement, Sri Satyendra Singh was paid the admissible dues of late Rajendra Singh vide Office Order dated 06.03.1997. After settlement of the dispute and receiving the admissible dues of his deceased brother, the Respondent submitted application dated 09.10.1997 for compassionate appointment and at the relevant time, he was 36 years old and had already crossed the upper age limit of 35 years. Accordingly, his request was summarily rejected by the petitioner-management. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, who vide order dated 19.02.2001 referred the same to the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad by framing the following issue: “Whether the demand of the Union for providing employment to the dependent younger brother of late Rajendra Singh from the management of Gazlitand Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified? If so, to what relief is the said dependent entitled for?” 4. Upon receipt of the reference, the Tribunal registered the same as Ref. Case No. 55 of 2001 and issued notices to the respective parties to submit their written statement and rejoinder, if any. If so, to what relief is the said dependent entitled for?” 4. Upon receipt of the reference, the Tribunal registered the same as Ref. Case No. 55 of 2001 and issued notices to the respective parties to submit their written statement and rejoinder, if any. Upon receipt of notice, both parties submitted their respective written statement, rejoinder, etc. and contested the case. Thereafter, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences and documents brought on record, the learned Tribunal vide its Award dated 21.04.2014, answered the Reference in favour of Union directing the petitioner-Management to provide employment to the dependent brother of late Rajedra Singh. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-management has knocked the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management vociferously argues that the Award is not legal, valid and proper since the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that brother of Satyendra Singh died on 16.02.1984 and application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 09.10.1997 i.e. after lapse of 13 years from the date of death and as such, it was a belated claim and the purpose of compassionate amount was frustrated at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of submitting the application for compassionate appointment, Satyendra Singh was 36 years old and had already crossed the upper age limit of 35 years for consideration of his case. As per Clause-9.4.3 of NCWA-V, the upper age limit for a dependent is 35 years and the Tribunal ought not to have passed an order directing the management to consider the claim for compassionate appointment. Further, on the date of passing the Award, the dependent was 53 years of age and hence, the purpose of compassionate appointment has already been frustrated. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union submits that there was no illegality in the Award and the writ petition does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel submits that soon after death of late Rajendra Singh, his mother namely Smt. Sushila Devi applied for compassionate appointment but as there some dispute in the family relating to death-cum-retiral benefits, the mother moved the competent Court for obtaining succession certificate and vide order 19.05.1993, succession certificate was granted in favour of Smt. Sushila Devi. Thereafter, an appeal being Misc. Thereafter, an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1993 was preferred but the same was dismissed for default by order dated 30.09.1996. Subsequently, by letter dated 12/15.09.1997, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the applicant Satyendra Singh was 36 years of age. Aggrieved by the same the Union has approached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who had referred the dispute to the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing the parties answered the Reference in favour of the dependent Satyendra Singh directing the petitioner-management to give him compassionate appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that learned Tribunal has passed the Award mechanically without considering the relevant statutory provisions, standing orders of Coal India and hence, it is capricious and cryptic and fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons: (I) The learned Tribunal has totally misconstrued the fact that by passage of time the very object of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. (II) Further, learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that on the date of making application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was 36 years and had already crossed the upper age limit fixed for compassionate appointment i.e. 35 years prescribed under the provisions of NCWA. Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-V reads as under: “9.3.4. The dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause-9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would no age limit regarding provision of employment”. In the case in hand, the dependent was brother of the deceased employee and as per said Clause, his age should have been less than 35 years but as the dependent was 36 years, rightly his case was rejected by the petitioner-management. (III) Compassionate appointment is given with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (III) Compassionate appointment is given with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment solely based on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. It can be very comfortably said that scheme or the policy is binding both on the employer and the employee. The scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:- “6. ……………….. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , has observed that: “15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.” (IV) The death of the applicant’s brother took place in the year 1984 and the applicant preferred application for compassionate appointment in the year 1997 and hence, there was a delay of almost 13 years in submitting the application form for compassionate appointment. (V) Further, almost 36 years have passed since the death of the brother of the applicant and the family members of deceased employee has survived for the said period and as such, the dependent-brother cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. The very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. (VI) Now the dependent-brother has reached the age of 59 years and hence, no case is made out for giving compassionate appointment to him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 has held that: “We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. [(1998) 2 PLJR SC 181]. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” (VII) The compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” (VII) The compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. Consideration for such appointment is not a matter of right which can be exercised at any time in future. The very object is to get over the financial crisis which the family faces at the time of death of sole breadwinner. The act of the authorities offering compassionate appointment dehors the rule is legally impermissible and in the instant case direction of the Tribunal for offering appointment waiving the rules, is legally impermissible and does not have legs to stand and is fit to be quashed and set aside. 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [ (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. Further, in case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under; “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.” 8. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the Award dated 21.04.2014, passed by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 55 of 2001. 9. Resultantly, writ petition filed by the Management of BCCL is hereby allowed. Writ petition allowed.