ORDER : I.A. No. 6143 of 2020 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 460 days in filing the instant appeal. However, the office in its stamp report dated 28.11.2020 has reported that there is a delay of 447 days in preferring this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. 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. 6143 of 2020 is allowed and delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 370 of 2020 6. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3695 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with order dated 08.09.2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the administrative authority. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which is required to be enumerated, read as hereunder: Father of the petitioner, namely, Late Mahendra Ram, working as Grade IV Employee (Khalasi) in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Sub Division, Chatra who joined his service in the year 1983, died in harness on 13.11.1998. After his death, the petitioner’s brother, namely, Gyan Prakash applied for compassionate appointment before the authorities concerned, which was not heeded to and therefore, he was compelled to move before this Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3056 of 2000(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2000 with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being W.P. (S) No. 1078 of 2004 for payment of retiral dues, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2004 with a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner and release all the admitted retiral dues within a period of two months. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being W.P. (S) No. 1078 of 2004 for payment of retiral dues, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2004 with a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner and release all the admitted retiral dues within a period of two months. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother and elder brother Gyan Prakash again represented before the respondents authorities for appointment on compassionate appointment but no order was passed. The petitioner came to know that since service of petitioner’s father was not confirmed, the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand was reluctant to extend the benefit of giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner or any other members of the family. Subsequently, on efforts being made by mother of the petitioner, the services of the deceased-employee, Mahendra Ram was confirmed by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no. 4437 dated 15.09.2011 w.e.f. 13.10.1988. It has further been stated that after about five years of the disposal of writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 3056 of 2000(R), the petitioner’s brother, Gyan Prakash, became seriously ill and consequently he lost his eye sight to a large extent, as such he was not able to see properly. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation dated 02.12.2011 for consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground before the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Mechanical Division, Hazaribagh, which was rejected vide decision dated 08.09.2016. Being aggrieved with non-consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3695 of 2017, which was dismissed on the ground that since the deceased-employee was appointed as Pump Khalasi under charged establishment and as per the guidelines of Department of Public Health and Engineering, Govt. of Bihar dated 21.07.1999, the dependent of employees of worked charged establishment is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that since the services of the father of writ petitioner was confirmed vide letter no. of Bihar dated 21.07.1999, the dependent of employees of worked charged establishment is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that since the services of the father of writ petitioner was confirmed vide letter no. 4437 dated 15.09.2011 the ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner that services of the father of the writ petitioner was not under regular establishment cannot be considered to be a good ground for rejecting of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that once the services of the father of the writ petitioner was confirmed with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 13.10.1988 even he died on 13.11.1998, he will be treated to be confirmed in view of subsequent decision of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no. 4437 dated 15.09.2011, but without considering that aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the impugned order of non-consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground, as such the order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law. 9. Per contra, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A. IV appearing for the respondents-State, has submitted that father of the petitioner died in the year 1998 and now we are in 2021, as such from the date of death of the deceased-employee 23 years has lapsed and the dependant of the deceased-employee survived for such a long period of 23 years, which itself is a ground for negating the claim for appointment on compassionate ground as appointment on compassionate ground cannot be treated to be an alternative source of appointment rather it is to be provided for immediate succor to the dependent of the bereaved family, who has come in penury due to sudden demise of the bread earner. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents available on record as also findings recorded by learned Single Judge. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents available on record as also findings recorded by learned Single Judge. This Court has found from the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the ground of rejection of claim of the writ petitioner is based upon the decision of the administrative authority i.e. District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 08.09.2016, whereby the Committee arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment in the light of Clause 10 of letter dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, the services of the father was not confirmed. Therefore, stand has been taken by the petitioner referring to decision of the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no. 4437, dated 15.09.2011 whereby services of the father of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 13.10.1988 and submission has been made that even though on the date of death of father of the writ petitioner the service of father was not confirmed, but since it was confirmed subsequently with retrospective effect, the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the administrative authority on that ground will not be said to be just and proper. 11. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission but even accepting the said ground will come in favour of the writ petitioner then also this Court is required to consider as to whether the second argument which has been advanced by learned State Counsel of lapse of period of 23 years from the date of death of bread earner the appointment on compassionate ground can be given? 12. It is well settled position of law that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment rather it is an exception to the general rule of recruitment. 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. 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. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 , relevant paragraphs of which is quoted as under: “18...........Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependents of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State. In that sense, it is well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment........” 21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: “2........As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration 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 in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family......” 26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077, has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590 has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.” Further, reference in this regard be made to the decision rendered in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299, in which at paragraphs 8 and 9, it is has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the Respondent’s son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the Respondent’s husband is missing since 2002. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the Respondent’s husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the Respondent who are the dependents of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent’s husband went missing in view of the employment of the Respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the Respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the Respondent’s son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent’s husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” Admittedly, in the case in hand, the father of the writ petitioner died on 13.11.1998 and now we are in the end of year 2021. Therefore, 23 years has already lapsed and if after such a long delay order for appointment on compassionate ground is passed it will nothing but contrary to the object and intent of such appointment as the appointment on compassionate ground has been declared not to be an alternative mode to get an appointment as also being in the teeth of Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, even then the scheme has been formulated to provide appointment on compassionate ground keeping the fact into consideration that due to sudden demise of bread earner the family which has come to penury may be able to survive and not forced to starvation. However, even then the scheme has been formulated to provide appointment on compassionate ground keeping the fact into consideration that due to sudden demise of bread earner the family which has come to penury may be able to survive and not forced to starvation. But, in the case in hand, 23 years has already lapsed and when for 23 years the dependent of the deceased employee has been able to survive, it would not be apt for this Court to direct the administrative authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Otherwise, it will lead to an alternative mode of appointment which will be contrary to the principle laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also contrary to the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground, which has been formulated to provide immediate relief to the dependent of the bereaved family. 13. Since the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order, although on different reason, but the fact remains that after lapse of 23 years, there cannot be any direction for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate ground. 14. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and case laws referred above, is of the view that rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to be unjustified decision. 15. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.