JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the rejection order dated 10.03.2017, passed by the respondent no. 2 and for a direction upon the respondents to consider her case for her employment on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.0 of NCWA, within a stipulated period and not to discriminate the petitioner and to extend the benefits of employment under Para 9.3.0 of NCWA at par with the same and similarly situated persons. 3. Factual exposition as has been narrated in the writ petition is that Kadmi Devi, mother-in-law of the petitioner, was a permanent employee of the respondent-CCL, who died in harness on 02.03.2012 while posted as P.R.W. in Kargali Colliery, CCL. After her death, Shyam Kumar (son of the deceased) filed his representation before the concerned authorities informing about said demise and further for his employment on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.0 of the NCWA, which was duly forwarded by the concerned authority. Before any order could have been passed regarding appointment of petitioner’s husband on compassionate ground, he died on 16.02.2015. After his death, petitioner applied for her appointment under Para 9.3.0 of the NCWA before the Project Officer, vide her representation dated 24.09.2015. Petitioner was also called for interview but was not interviewed because the Sr. Manager was not available on the fixed date. When no further step was taken, petitioner again filed her representation seeking her employment after death of her husband. Petitioner was called for interview but no order was passed. Upon her queries made before the Samadhan Cell H.Q., they informed vide letter dated 10.02.2017 that her claim was under consideration and she would be intimated about the decision taken by the respondents. Petitioner also filed representation before the Director (Personnel) categorically mentioning therein about the difficulties being faced by them after death of bread earner in the family. While petitioner was waiting for favourable order, she received a letter dated 10.03.2017, issued by the GM(P)/MP&R/NEE, IRL, CCL, Ranchi informing the petitioner that her claim for employment on compassionate ground was found devoid of merits and the same has been rejected by letter dated 10.02.2017, which has however never been served upon the petitioner nor the reasons for rejections has been made known to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mrs. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S.C. Roy and Ms. Mahua Palit, appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on extraneous circumstances and without application of mind though in the facts and circumstances involved in this case, petitioner being daughter-in-law of the deceased employee is fully entitled for such appointment after death of son of the deceased employee. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that it is a clear case where family has suffered trauma by two deaths simultaneously and instead of giving assistance by way of providing employment to the bereaved family, respondents are bent upon harassing them. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that there is neither delay nor misrepresentation on part of the petitioner rather before the respondents could have passed any order on the pending application of husband of the petitioner, he died and thereafter, petitioner has made application for her employment. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in such cases lenient view ought to have been taken by the respondents without going into technicalities. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents-CCL. Learned counsel submits that subject matter of the instant writ petition would lie before the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and writ petition before this Court is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel further argues that the provisions of employment on compassionate ground/monetary compensation under Para 9.3.0/9.4.0/ 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement X was in operation till 31.03.2018 only and was further extended up-to 03.06.2018 by a letter dated 06.04.2018 and thereafter there is no provision exists for employment on compassionate ground/monetary compensation. Learned counsel further argues that when deceased Shyam Kumar was asked to appear before the screening committee along with other family members and requisite documents, he did not do so rather a letter was written by his sisters not to provide him employment in view of prevailing disputes amongst family members. Learned counsel further argues that application of the petitioner was not within time rather she filed the application after expiry of about 2 years 11 months from the date of death of deceased employee. Learned counsel further argues that application of the petitioner was not within time rather she filed the application after expiry of about 2 years 11 months from the date of death of deceased employee. It is further argued that petitioner being daughter-in-law of deceased employee comes under the definition of “Indirect dependent” and as such her case can be considered only when direct dependents of the deceased employee are not available. Since already there are other direct dependent of deceased employee, case of the petitioner could not have been considered. It is further argued that name of the petitioner was never disclosed in service records of the deceased employee to suggest that petitioner was dependent upon her earning or was residing with her, which is an essential criteria for consideration of case of the indirect dependent for employment on compassionate ground. After proper scrutiny, petitioner’s case has been rejected vide letter dated 10.02.2017 and duly communicated to her vide letter dated 10.03.2017. 6. The issue of compassionate appointment has been dealt with elaborately in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court. The very concept of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over the family from sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. However, the request for appointment on compassionate ground should be reasonable and proximate of the time of death of the bread earner of the family in as much as the very purpose of giving such benefits is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden financial crisis occurred in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get appointment in the government service. 7. But this cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get appointment in the government service. 7. In the case at hand, the application of the petitioner was not within the time rather she preferred an application after expiry of two years eleven months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Now adhering to the Rules for appointment in Coal India, as governed by NCWA, petitioner being daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, comes under the definition of ‘indirect dependent’ and as such, her case could have been considered only when direct dependents are not available. Admittedly, there are direct dependents of the deceased-employee. So, petitioner’s case was rightly not considered as she happened to be indirect dependent. It has also been brought to the knowledge of this Court that petitioner’s name was never disclosed in the service record and no document has been brought on record to show that she was dependent upon her earning or was residing with her, which is the essential criteria for considering case of indirect dependent for appointment on compassionate ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , has clearly held in para-6 as under: “6. For these very reasons, 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.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 481 in para-10 to 13 has held as under: “10. Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable from 1981. Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the issue as to whether employment on compassionate grounds could be asked for in a case of deemed death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it can be so demanded and asked for, such a right should and could have been exercised in the year 1988 and computing the period of five years therefrom the period of limitation for making an application for employment in the case of the appellant expired in the year 1993. 11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are aced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread-earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service. 13. In the present case, the father of the appellant became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member. That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.” In S.B.I. vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , it has been held at paragraph-8 as under: “It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.” In S.B.I. vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , it has been held at paragraph-8 as under: “It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/ withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.” In the case of General Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475 , it has been held at para-31 as under: “31. We are of the view that both the courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, the State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot ignore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of the deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to death of the sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment.” Further in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 , it has been held at paragraph-15 as under: “15. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances, i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In S.B.I. vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new scheme has to be considered.” 8. The Judgments relied upon by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner is of no help. Admittedly petitioner applied much after the prescribed period and no application can be considered after a long delay. Petitioner is not the direct dependent and writ petition was filed years after rejection. Rightly because of inordinate delay application was not entertained. 9. In view of aforesaid decisions, judicial pronouncements, legal propositions, no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition. Petitioner does not deserves to be appointed on compassionate grounds. No case is made out for any interference. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.