ORDER : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 11700 of 2019 2 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 343 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard. 4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11700 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 343 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 645 of 2019 6. The instant appeal filed under Clause 10 of the letters patent, directed against the order/judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3853 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be referred herein, reads hereunder as: The father of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Benja Mochi @ Benja Ravidaswas appointed as ‘Tyre Fitter’ at Central Workshop, Barkakana, died in harness on 25.02.1998. The writ petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment with the name Gulabchand Ravidas on 03.06.1998, which was rejected by order dated 08.12.1998 on the ground that his name did not appear in the service records of the deceased employee. His mother represented on 31.12.1998 stating that Gulab Chand Ravidas is also known as Langro, whose name appears in the service excerpts and as such, employment may be provided to her son. The said representation was also rejected on 16.02.1999 due to difference in name. Thereafter, widow of the employee, petitioner’s mother, requested for employment to her elder son Govind Ram, which was rejected vide letter dated 08.06.2001, as he had completed the prescribed age limit of 35 years. The writ petitioner approached to this Court in 2011 by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 for compassionate appointment stating that he had applied within six months. The writ petitioner approached to this Court in 2011 by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 for compassionate appointment stating that he had applied within six months. However, the order of rejection dated 08.12.1998 and 16.02.1999 was not made subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition either. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.02.2017 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically. The writ petitioner was allowed to make representation which could be referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee, which was required to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a stipulated period. The respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2017, inter-alia, on the ground that previous rejection of the case of compassionate appointment in respect of his claim by the letters dated 08.12.1998 and 16.02.1999 have never been challenged. The claim of compassionate appointment in respect of his elder brother, Govind Ram was also rejected on 08.06.2001 which was never been challenged and as such, the authorities considering the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 found the case of the writ petitioner not fit to be considered since the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed by way of a vested right. The aforesaid order dated 31.08.2017 was challenged before the writ Court wherein plea was taken by the respondent-C.C.L. reiterating the same ground and further that the claim has become stale since the same is being claimed after 19 years of the death of the employee and the orders of rejection have never been challenged. The learned Single Judge of this Court, has dismissed the writ petition which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 8. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant on being instructed by the advocate on record, namely, Om Prakash Prasad, has argued by showing infirmity in the impugned decision. According to him, the learned Single Judge, has not appreciated the claim for appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant on compassionate ground as has been formulated by the respondent-CCL by way of an agreement i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). According to him, the learned Single Judge, has not appreciated the claim for appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant on compassionate ground as has been formulated by the respondent-CCL by way of an agreement i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). He has tried to impress upon this Court by referring to the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 wherein the decision was directed to be taken by the Dispute Redressal Committee but instead of referring the matter to the Committee the authority on its own has taken decision and as such, the matter requires afresh consideration. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-C.C.L. has refuted the aforesaid argument by taking plea that the claim has become stale since the claim is being made after lapse of 19 years. The claim has already been rejected thrice which has never been challenged. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The admitted position herein is that, the father of the appellant-writ petitioner, namely, Late Benja Mochi @ Benja Ravidas, who was working as ‘Tyre Fitter’ at Central Workshop, Barkakana, died in harness on 25.02.1998. The writ petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment with the name Gulabchand Ravidas on 03.06.1998, which was rejected by order dated 08.12.1998 on the ground that his name did not appear in the service records of the deceased employee. His mother represented on 31.12.1998 stating that Gulab Chand Ravidas is also known as ‘Langro’ whose name appears in the service excerpts and as such, employment may be provided to her son, but the said representation was rejected on 16.02.1999 due to difference in name. The appellant’s mother again requested for employment to her elder son Govind Ram, which was also rejected vide letter dated 08.06.2001, as he had completed the prescribed age limit of 35 years. The writ petitioner has approached to this Court in the year 2011 by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 for compassionate appointment, but has not chosen to challenge the order dated 08.12.1998, 16.02.1999 as also the order dated 08.06.2001. The aforesaid writ petition was filed with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (in short N.C.W.A.). The aforesaid writ petition was filed with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (in short N.C.W.A.). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-16 to the paper-book). The learned Single Judge, in the aforesaid writ petition, has directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically and the petitioner if so desires, makes a fresh representation referring earlier representation annexing all the documents. The said representation on consideration may be referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee and the Dispute Redressal Committee after considering every aspect of the representation, may pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. If the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment, appointment letter to that effect should be issued within a further period of two months thereafter. The part of the said order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 is being referred herein-below: “Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and considering the documents on record and the pity situation of the family, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and the petitioner if so desires, makes a fresh representation referring earlier representation annexing all the documents. The said representation on consideration may be referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee and the Dispute Redressal Committee after considering every aspect of the representation may pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. If the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment, appointment letter to that effect should be issued within a further period of two months thereafter. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.” The writ petitioner made a representation which was considered by the authority by taking a decision on 31.08.2017. The said order was challenged in the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. The competent authority has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the claim of the writ petitioner has already been rejected thrice i.e. 08.12.1998 which pertains to the application filed by the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment with the name of Gulabchand Ravidas but the authority has not found the name of the writ petitioner in the service record which has never been challenged. Subsequently, the claim for appointment has further been rejected vide order dated 16.02.1999 and 08.06.2001. But, these three orders have never been challenged. In the meanwhile, the period of 11 years has elapsed and as such, the claim is not found to be sustainable, accordingly rejected. 11. The learned Single Judge has considered the content of the order as also the reasons recorded therein, we do not find any reason to differ with the aforesaid finding since the admissible claim for appointment on compassion, even under the N.C.W.A. is required to be made as per the provision of Clause 9.3.2 within stipulated period i.e. either six months or two months as applicable on the basis of date of death. The appointment is to be given to the dependant of the deceased employee as per the provision contained in the agreement. Admittedly, herein the writ petitioner, Gulab Chand Ravidas had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground by treating him to be Gulab Chand Ravidas and since in the service record, the name of the writ petitioner was Langru, the said claim was rejected. The writ petitioner has accepted the same since the same was not challenged. Subsequently, the mother of the writ petitioner made an application on 31.12.1998 stating that Gulab Chand Ravidas is also known as Langro, whose name appears in the service excerpts and as such, employment may be provided to her son. The said representation was also rejected on 16.02.1999 due to difference in name which was also not challenged. The mother of the writ petitioner again come forward by making an application for appointment on compassionate ground to be provided to her elder son namely, Govind Ram, which was rejected vide letter dated 08.06.2001, as he had completed the prescribed age limit of 35 years which was also not challenged. Therefore, according to our considered view, the claim which pertains to appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of the employee, Late Benja Mochi @ Benja Ravidas has been considered thrice but were rejected i.e. 08.12.1998, 16.02.1999 and 08.06.2001. All these three decisions of the authorities have never been challenged. Therefore, according to our considered view, the claim which pertains to appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of the employee, Late Benja Mochi @ Benja Ravidas has been considered thrice but were rejected i.e. 08.12.1998, 16.02.1999 and 08.06.2001. All these three decisions of the authorities have never been challenged. However, the writ petitioner has again approached to this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 10.02.2017 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation and the authority had been directed to refer the matter before the Dispute Redressal Committee, if it is found fit to be referred for consideration of the representation. But the authorities did not find it a fit case to be referred before the Dispute Redressal Committee since the issue for appointment on compassionate ground had already been rejected thrice and further a considerable delay had already been caused from the cause of action i.e. from the date of death of the deceased employee. 12. We have considered the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2510 of 2011, wherefrom it is evident that the representation had been directed to be filed by the writ petitioner which was to be considered by the concerned authority, and if on consideration the said representation may be referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee, meaning thereby, there was no absolute direction to refer the issue before the Dispute Redressal Committee rather it had been left open to the concerned authority that if it is found fit to refer before the Dispute Redressal Committee then only it would have been sent. But the authorities have thought it not proper to send it before the Dispute Redressal Committee for the reason that case of the petitioner has rejected thrice and considerable delay has also been caused. It requires to refer herein the proposition of law in the matter of compassionate appointment which is to provide immediate relief for survival of the dependants of the bereaved family occurred due to sudden demise of the bread earner. Further such appointment cannot be claimed by way of legal vested right. The principle of appointment on compassionate ground has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and Others vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 . Further such appointment cannot be claimed by way of legal vested right. The principle of appointment on compassionate ground has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and Others vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 . The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 . 13. In view of the above settled position of law, we are of the view that no infirmity has been committed by the authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 14. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has refused to interfere with the impugned order, which according to us, suffers from no infirmity. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal, is hereby dismissed.