JUDGMENT : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 586 of 2020 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 85 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 586 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 85 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 584 of 2019 6. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6578 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed as interference in the order dated 05.08.2013, by which the application of the writ petitioner-appellant for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected, has been declined. 7. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The father of the writ petitioner-appellant, namely, Rajkishore Nonia, was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited, herein after referred to as ‘CCL’. His mother, namely, Nepuri Kamin, was also an employee of CCL, who took voluntary retirement and in her place, the brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, namely, Rameshwar Nonia, got employment. The father of the writ petitioner appellant died on 26.10.2002 leaving behind the present writ petitioner-appellant and other three brothers. The writ petitioner-appellant claims to have made an application before the Personnel Manager, CCL on 28.05.2003, but, in the meantime, the brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, namely, Kameshwar Nonia, died on 01.07.2008. Further, case of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that he was informed that his case was of double employment, hence, the same could not be considered. In the meanwhile, a notification was issued on 16.04.2008 by the CCL doing away with the embargo of double employment which occasioned the writ petitioner-appellant to file a fresh application on 06.12.2008 for consideration of grant of appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by passing the impugned order dated 05.08.2013. In the meanwhile, a notification was issued on 16.04.2008 by the CCL doing away with the embargo of double employment which occasioned the writ petitioner-appellant to file a fresh application on 06.12.2008 for consideration of grant of appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by passing the impugned order dated 05.08.2013. The writ petitioner-appellant had challenged the impugned order, inter alia, taking the plea that, since the writ petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 28.05.2003 and further, as one of his brother was in employment, as such he was under impression that his case would not be considered, being a case of double employment. However, after issuance of circular dated 16.04.2008, lifting the embargo of double employment, the writ petitioner-appellant applied afresh, which was rejected. Learned Single Judge, after scrutinizing all aspects of the matter, has found from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents-CCL that after the death of the father of the writ petitioner-appellant on 26.10.2002, Kameshwar Nonia, the elder brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, submitted an application on 12.06.2003 but the aforesaid application was shown to be filed by the writ petitioner as per pleadings made at paragraph 6 (C) of the writ petition. But, in course of scrutiny of factual aspect of the matter, it was found that during consideration of appointment on the application dated 12.06.2003 for compassionate ground of said Kameshwar Nonia, he died on 01.07.2008 and after his death, the writ petitioner submitted an application on 30.01.2009 i.e., after six years after the death of the employee, as such the death of the brother of the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a cause of action for filing of the writ petition. Further, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that though the impugned order was passed on 05.08.2013 but the same was challenged after four years on 17.11.2017 by filing the writ petition and the delay in filing the writ petition has not properly been explained. On these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant was dependent upon his father, who died in harness on 26.10.2002. On these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant was dependent upon his father, who died in harness on 26.10.2002. Further, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the binding nature of the agreement, namely, ‘National Coal Wages Agreement’ (in short ‘NCWA’), which contains a provision with respect of appointment on compassionate ground under which it has been mentioned that it is the duty of the respondents-CCL to provide employment to the dependents of the deceased-employee. In support of his submission, he has referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Fields Limited & Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 39 . 9. Mr. D.K. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petitioner had tried to mislead the authority as also this Court. The mother and father of the writ petitioner both were in service of the CCL and after voluntary retirement of his mother, one of his brother has got employment in CCL. After death of his father the elder brother of the writ petitioner, namely, Kameshwar Nonia had made application for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2006 on the ground of double employment since one of the brother was also in the service of the CCL. Further, the order dated 13.08.2006 passed against Kameshwar Nonia, brother of the writ petitioner was never challenged by him before any appropriate authority or forum. However, he died on 01.07.2008, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, however, did not file application but statement was furnished at paragraph 6(C) of the writ petition that the application filed by his brother, Kameshwar Nonia, was actually filed by him. Therefore, misleading statement was made to explain the period of limitation. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner had filed application on 30.01.2009 and thereafter, on 06.10.2015 vide Annexure 8 to the memo of appeal. Therefore, misleading statement was made to explain the period of limitation. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner had filed application on 30.01.2009 and thereafter, on 06.10.2015 vide Annexure 8 to the memo of appeal. In that view of the matter, the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected by the authority concerned on the ground of limitation since the writ petitioner had made application after lapse of about more than six years. The said fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge as also the fact that the misleading statement has been made under paragraph 6 (C) of the writ petition, basing upon which the writ petition has been dismissed. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The admitted fact in this case is that both father and mother of the writ petitioner were in service of the CCL. The mother, Nepuri Kamin, took voluntary retirement and in her place the brother of the writ petitioner, namely, Rameshwar Nonia, got employment. The father of the writ petitioner died on 26.10.2002 leaving behind the present writ petitioner-appellant and his three brothers. The elder brother, namely, Kameshwar Nonia, had filed application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground on 28.05.2003, as would be evident from Annexure 2, appended to the memo of appeal on the ground that his father, namely, Rajkishore Nonia, died on 26.10.2002 in harness. The aforesaid application was looked into and checked up by the competent authority of the respondents-CCL but as would appear from communication dated 13.08.2006, the case of said Kameshwar Nonia was treated to be the case of double employment and for seeking approval of the competent authority the same was forwarded before the higher authority. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Kameshwar Nonia died on 01.07.2008. 11. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Kameshwar Nonia died on 01.07.2008. 11. On specific query made by this Court with respect to the fact as to whether the communication dated 13.08.2006 made with respect to the case of the said Kameshwar Nonia rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of double employment since one of the brother was also in the service of the CCL was ever challenged by Kameshwar Nonia during his lifetime or not, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the said order was never challenged. The writ petitioner, thereafter, had approached before the authority by making an application dated 06.12.2008 for compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dated 05.08.2013 on the ground that the case of the writ petitioner-appellant was not a case of double employment and as such the same does not fall within the purview of notification dated 16.04.2008. The aforesaid application was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant after lifting of the embargo to make an application in case of double employment. Subsequently, the writ petitioner-appellant submitted application on 06.10.2015. The ex-employee died on 26.10.2002 and the writ petitioner had submitted application on 30.01.2009 i.e. after expiry of 6 years 3 months and 4 days after the death of the employee, which is highly delayed. Further, even if brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, namely, Kameshwar Nonia had applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit at earlier occasion, application of writ petitioner-appellant cannot be taken into continuation with the earlier application as the same was not transferrable one. For ready reference, the content of the order dated 5.08.2013 is quoted hereunder: “In reference to the General Manager (P &IR), CCL, Ranchi letter no. PD/MP/9.3.0/2222 dt. 8/7/2013 & communicated vide General Manager (Pers.) (B&K) Kargali’s letter no. PD/9.3.0./Kargali (OC)/13/1565 dt. 13/14.07.2013. The proposal of compassionate appointment of Sri Parmeshwar Nonia, s/o late Rajkishor Nonia, Ex-PR Worker Kargali (OC) (P & IR) Area has been examined and observed that: 1. The case of the appellant was not regretted as a case of double employment as such, the same does not fall within the purview of our circular dated 16.04.2008 for consideration of case regretted on the ground of double employment. 2. The case of the appellant was not regretted as a case of double employment as such, the same does not fall within the purview of our circular dated 16.04.2008 for consideration of case regretted on the ground of double employment. 2. The ex-employee died on 26.10.2002 and Sri Parmeshwar Nonia submitted application on30.01.2009 i.e. after expiry of 6 years 03 months and 4 days of death of the ex-employee which is highly belated. 3. That even if brother of the applicant Late Kameshwar had applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit at earlier occasion, application of Parmeshwar Nonia cannot be taken into continuation with the earlier application as compassionate appointment does not bear transferable right. In view of the above proposal has not been agreed by the competent authority. You are hereby informed that above proposal has not been agreed by the competent authority. This is for your information.” Thus, it is evident that after the death of the deceased-employee, an application was filed by elder brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, namely, Kameshwar Nonia, in the year 2003 which was rejected on the ground of double employment on 13.08.2006 but the said order has never been challenged by the said Kameshwar Nonia while he was surviving. Subsequently, he died on 01.07.2008. 12. The writ petitioner-appellant filed application on 06.12.2008 but the date of application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been recorded in the impugned order as 30.01.2009, meaning thereby the said application was filed after expiry of 6 years, 3 months and 4 days. 13. The question, which has been looked into by the learned Single Judge was about the conduct of the writ petitioner vis-a-vis merit of the case. The conduct of the writ petitioner had been deprecated by learned Single Judge since the writ petitioner at paragraph 6 (C) of the writ petition has furnished a statement that the application as contained in Annexure 2, which was actually filed by elder brother of the writ petitioner, namely, Kameshwar Nonia, has been stated to be filed by the writ petitioner himself but the said fact was found to be incorrect after appearance of the respondents before the writ Court and filing the counter affidavit. Learned Single Judge has treated that statement to be misrepresentation of fact for justifying the period of delay in filing application before the authority concerned. Learned Single Judge has treated that statement to be misrepresentation of fact for justifying the period of delay in filing application before the authority concerned. The writ petitioner has misrepresented only to take advantage for continuity of the application filed by his elder brother, namely, Kameshwar Nonia, who has filed application on 12.06.2003. Therefore, the said misrepresentation, being fatal in nature, has rightly been taken as a ground to dismiss the writ petition since the writ Court being a Court of equity is supposed to adjudicate the matter only if the litigant approaches the Court with all fairness. Further, the ground of rejection reflects the delay in filing the application i.e. after 6 years, 3 months and 4 days. It has been submitted at this juncture by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that under the agreement, i.e., NCWA, there is no period of limitation prescribed and as such rejection on that ground cannot be said to be justified. But the aforesaid argument is not acceptable by this Court as, any period of limitation has not been fixed in the condition to provide appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.0 but by virtue of circular issued on 12.12.1995, the period prescribed for filing the application on compassionate ground was made six months but the same was extended to one year by virtue of circular dated 01.01.2002 giving it retrospective application w.e.f. February, 2000. Although the aforesaid period of limitation has not been provided under NCWA but its legality and propriety has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra) and imposition of period of limitation was found to be within the jurisdiction of the respondent, as has been held under paragraph 10, which is quoted hereunder as: “10.A settlement within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate ground, subject, of course, to compliance of the conditions precedent contained therein. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the finding recorded by the authority in the order impugned in the writ petition as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the orders passed by the administrative authority and of the learned Single Judge require no interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.