JUDGMENT : 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.6025 of 2020 2 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 64 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.6025 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 64 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.415 of 2019 6. This instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6864 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the decision of the authority as contained in letter no.1062 dated 21.04.2017, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be referred herein, reads hereunder as: The father of the writ petitioner was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited, who died in harness on 07.03.2004. The writ petitioner-appellant applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was considered and vide order dated 23.08.2006 he was offered employment on compassionate ground. In the meantime, the writ petitioner got involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 304 (B) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code being Baghmara (Kharkhare) P.S. Case No.102 of 2004. The writ petitioner stood convicted vide judgment dated 05.06.2006 for committing offence punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The writ petitioner was taken into custody and as such, he could not join pursuant to the offer of appointment. The writ petitioner ultimately, was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case in an order passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.968 of 2006. The writ petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment but was rejected by the impugned order. The writ petitioner ultimately, was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case in an order passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.968 of 2006. The writ petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment but was rejected by the impugned order. The writ petitioner approached to this Court by challenging the aforesaid order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that in view of the provision as contained in Clause-6 of the offer of appointment, which stipulates that a candidate should join within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order, failing which, appointment offer will be deemed to have been cancelled without any further reference. Admittedly, the writ petitioner did not join in terms of the conditions stipulated in Clause-6 of the offer of appointment rather he approached to the authority after 10 years, requesting to permit him to join the duty which cannot be allowed. The said order is the subject matter of intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Arjun N. Deo, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that however, the appellant had been convicted in a criminal case leading to non-joining of offer of appointment dated 23.08.2006 but since he has been acquitted by Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.968 of 2006, therefore, ignoring his joining by the authorities cannot be said to be justified. But, this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-C.C.L., has vehemently defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that it is not a case wherein offer of appointment has not been provided rather the claim of the writ petitioner has been considered by issuing the offer of appointment dated 23.08.2006 with a condition that the claimant is to resume duty within 30 days from the date of issuance of offer of appointment and once the said condition is there, it binds the claimant to report on duty within a period of 30 days. But, the writ petitioner did not join the duty within 30 days and therefore, the offer of appointment deemed to have been cancelled and thereafter, he has approached to the authority after lapse of 10 years and hence considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the delay of 10 years, the authorities have rightly not accepted the joining by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner which has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the same cannot be interfered with. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the factual position herein, is that the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 07.03.2004. The writ petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was considered and a positive decision was taken by the respondents-C.C.L by offering appointment vide order dated 23.08.2006. It would be evident from Clause-6 of the offer of appointment, which stipulates a condition that joining is to be given within 30 days from the date of issuance of the offer of appointment, failing which, appointment offer deemed to have been cancelled without any further reference but the writ petitioner did not join duty within the said period of 30 days. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that since he was convicted in a criminal case being Baghmara (Kharkhare) P.S. Case No.102 of 2004 but, subsequently he has been acquitted by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.968 of 2006, therefore, he ought to have been allowed to join the duty in terms of offer of appointment dated 23.08.2006. But the said plea has been rejected by the authority which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is settled position of law that the offer of appointment if contains certain conditions, the same binds both the parties. It is not in dispute that the offer of appointment contains a provision under Clause- 6 that joining is to be given within 30 days of the issuance of the letter, failing which, the offer of appointment will be deemed to have been cancelled. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not given joining within 30 days and therefore, the aforesaid offer of appointment in pursuant to Clause- 6 thereof has lost its efficacy. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has not given joining within 30 days and therefore, the aforesaid offer of appointment in pursuant to Clause- 6 thereof has lost its efficacy. The petitioner has justified the reason of not given joining due to his conviction in a criminal case, in which finally he has been acquitted by the appellate court which caused 10 years of delay. The question is that the writ petitioner had prayed before the authority to accept his joining in terms of the joining letter dated 23.08.2006. Admittedly, as per the condition stipulated therein as under Clause-6 thereof, the force of the offer of appointment has lost its efficacy after expiry of the period of 30 days and once the efficacy of offer of appointment has lost its force, there cannot be a direction to revive it so long as the said condition is in existence. The writ petitioner has tried to impress upon the authority, the learned Single Judge as also this Court that due to conviction in the criminal case which ultimately resulted into acquittal, has caused delay of 10 years, joining could not have been denied. The question is that for whatever reason the writ petitioner has failed to fulfil the condition of offer of appointment and therefore, there cannot any direction for revival of the order dated 23.08.2006, which has lost its efficacy after expiry of the period of 30 days. 12. We, after going through the impugned decision passed by the authority as also the learned Single Judge, which has been impugned in this memo of appeal, are of the view that no error has been committed either by the authority or by the learned Single Judge, in passing the order by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner, taking into consideration the specific terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. 13. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.