JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II assisted by Ms. Shivani Kapoor, AC to SC-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the impugned order contained at Annexure-6 dated 11.08.2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that date of birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1994. The petitioner is member of scheduled tribe and is permanent resident of State of Jharkhand. The father of the petitioner Daulat Ram Baraik died in harness on 16.05.2007. The petitioner passed secondary school examination in 2014. He further passed Intermediate of Arts examination in 2016. The dependency certificate in favour of the mother of the petitioner was issued by the Circle Officer on 10.10.2007. The petitioner has made application for consideration of the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner on attaining the age of majority made an application for his employment on compassionate ground. By letter dated 23.07.2018 the Block Education Extension Officer, Bharno forwarded the said application to the respondent no.4 for consideration. The matter was placed before the District Establishment Committee on 18.03.2019 which is rejected on the ground that the said application has been filed after 11 years of the death of his father which is not in terms of Clause 10 of the Regulation dated 01.12.2015. 5. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was minor and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has applied and in that view of the matter he is entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was minor and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has applied and in that view of the matter he is entitled for compassionate appointment. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in case of “Pradip Kumar Mehta v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.” reported in 2006 (4) JCR 184 (Jhr.), “Lakhan Kumar v. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.” reported in 2005 (2) JCR 459 (Jhr) and the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in L.P.A. No.268 of 2011. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. She submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 30.05.1994 and he attained the majority in the year 2012. The Annexure-4, application of the petitioner is dated 23.07.2018. She submitted that even after attaining the majority the petitioner has applied after five years which is in violation of the rules and regulations particularly Clause 10 of the Regulation dated 01.12.2015 meant for compassionate appointment. 8. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and found that the petitioner’s date of birth is 30.05.1994 and he attained the majority in the year 2012 and vide Annexure-4 dated 23.07.2018 he has applied for compassionate appointment. The Court found force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State that even after attaining the age of majority the application was filed after lapse of more than five years from the date of majority. However, the rules say that from the date of death of the employee the application should be filed within five years. The judgement relied by Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of “Pradip Kumar Mehta” supra is not applicable as in that case the Court was considering the N.C.W.A of the Central Coalfields Limited wherein there is certain provision of minors to apply after attaining the age of majority and this aspect was considered by the Court in that case whereas the case of the present matter is different. The case of “Lakhan Kumar” supra was also being considered by the Court with regard to N.C.W.A. The Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No.268 of 2011 was considered by the Court as the case of a minor has been specifically provided in Clause 9.5.0 as it has been interpreted that the intention of the respondent-company that those who are minors at the time when their parents in employment die, should be given employment once the minor attains majority. Thus, the judgments relied by Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner are on different footing wherein specific provisions regarding minor in terms of the N.C.W.A are there. The compassionate appointment is need to be considered in terms of the rules, regulations and the scheme made for such institution, department of Government. In the case in hand there is specific provision to apply within five years from the date of death of the employee and it is clear from the fact that the petitioner applied after much delay. 9. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and hence, the writ petition [W.P.(S) No.7019 of 2019 ] stands dismissed. 10. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.