JUDGMENT : 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 247 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 3. 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. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.2924 of 2020 is allowed and the delay of 247 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.771 of 2019: 5. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 17.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6518 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been refused to be interfered with. 6. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder: The mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Sundri Kamin was permanent employee of Central Coalfields Limited, Amlo Project, Bermo, Bokaro as a Piece Rated Worker. She became traceless on or before 02.04.2003. The writ petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No.37 of 2010 on 25.05.2010 i.e., after lapse of the period of 7 years of missing of the mother of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, thereafter, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The suit was decreed on 01.08.2012. The writ petitioner, thereafter, made application on 29.09.2012 before the Project Officer for deleting the name of his mother, namely, Sundri Kamin from the service roll vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 passed in Title Suit no.37 of 2010 whereby the mother of the writ petitioner has been declared to be dead (civil) on 02.04.2003. The management having not taken any action on such application of the writ petitioner, he had approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6518 of 2016. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent-management by filing counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge after having heard the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that he is facing great hardship and is in distress or in financial crisis because of the death of his mother. The learned Single Judge after having heard the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that he is facing great hardship and is in distress or in financial crisis because of the death of his mother. Further, no averment has been made that he was dependent on his mother, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that under the terms and conditions of the National Coal Wage Agreement there is no requirement of producing the certificate to the effect that the dependent is dependent upon the bread earner, i.e., employee who died in harness. According to him, since the employment has been sought for under the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement and as would be evident from the terms and conditions stipulated therein as under Clause 9.3.2 the only requirement is of being a dependent upon the employee who died in harness, therefore, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of that he has not averred upon the dependency upon the employee who died in harness, i.e., mother of the writ petitioner, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and the same may be quashed and set aside. 8. While, on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel for the CCL management has submitted that what has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no condition to that effect stipulated under the National Coal Wage Agreement, which is incorrect, as would be evident from the condition as under Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement but even accepting the same even then no appointment on compassionate ground can be provided under Clause 9.3.0 as because herein, the death, which has been declared to be a civil death is on 02.04.2003 and almost 18 years have lapsed, as such, the very purpose of providing appointment has vanished. He, in order to support his argument has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. He, in order to support his argument has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 wherein, as would be evident from paragraphs-8 & 9,the Hon’ble Apex Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by this Court wherein the appointment on compassionate ground has been provided without taking into consideration the fact that the period of 10 years has already lapsed from the date of death of bread earner of that case. 9. According to Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the CCL Management herein also even accepting the date of civil death as on 02.04.2003 but now we are in the year 2021 and as such almost 18 years have already been lapsed, therefore, the very purpose for providing appointment has vanished and in the aforesaid judgment there was a delay of 10 years, the appointment on compassionate ground has been refused to be entertained, therefore, the said judgment squarely covers the facts of this case. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Admitted fact herein is that the mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Sundri Kamin, became traceless on or before 02.04.2003. The writ petitioner filed a declaratory suit being T.S. No.37 of 2010 before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting declaration of the civil death of his mother. The aforesaid suit has been decreed on 01.08.2012. The writ petitioner had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provision as contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement and when the claim of the writ petitioner has not been decided finally the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6518 of 2016 before this Court which has been dismissed, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 11. 11. The learned Single Judge has considered the scope of the provision of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act which mandates for getting a declaration from the competent court of civil jurisdiction in a case of tracelessness of a person by way of filing a suit after lapse of seven years, however, the learned Single Judge has travelled into the fact that the writ petitioner has failed to establish about the financial dependency upon his mother, deceased employee, basis upon which the writ petition has been dismissed. 12. It is correct, as would be evident from the terms and conditions of the National Coal Wage Agreement that condition has been stipulated therein that the dependant who is entitled for employment is almost or wholly dependent on the earning of the deceased in terms of the Clause 9.3.0, which reads hereunder as: “9.3.0. Provision of Employment to Dependants 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such directed dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitalble for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as give in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 13. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 13. It is evident from the aforesaid condition that the dependency on the earning of the deceased is a condition for providing appointment under the aforesaid clause and, therefore, the condition of dismissal of writ petition by the learned Single Judge, appears to be in consonance with the condition stipulated under Clause 9.3.0, but, the aforesaid condition does not stipulate that proving the dependency on the earning of the deceased is upon whom, whether it is upon the dependant or upon the employer. It is not in dispute that offer of employment is to be provided under the National Coal Wage Agreement in a situation where the bread earner has died all of a sudden and the requirement is to make application forthwith for consideration of candidature for appointment under Clause 9.3.0 and, as such, the requirement is to offer the candidature by the dependant for its consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. It is also not in dispute as has been admitted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the CCL-management that the welfare officer has been appointed to look after such situation of the dependant of the deceased employee and as such, it is the onus upon the employer, i.e., the CCL-management to look into the question of dependency upon the deceased employee. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge but the question is that even accepting that the dismissal of the writ petition on the aforesaid ground is not proper then can the appointment be provided under the provision of Clause 9.3.0 after considerable delay? 14. This Court, before answering this issue has considered the judgment rendered in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. vs. Parden Oraon (supra) which was also a case of civil death, the following proposition has been laid down as under paragraph-8 & 9 which is being reproduced hereinbelow: “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 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. 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 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. 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.” 15. It is evident from the reading of the paragraphs-8 & 9 of the aforesaid judgment that even though the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the very spirit of the appointment on compassionate ground as under paragraphs-8 thereof and in furtherance of the aforesaid observation made therein at paragraph-9 it has been referred by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner appointment on compassionate ground by reversing the order passed by the High Court by taking the ground that the death since has occurred 10 years ago, as such, the very purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground has vanished, therefore, it would not be proper to pass any direction for appointment on compassionate ground. 16. We have considered the aforesaid proposition based upon the factual aspect as contained therein and compared it from the facts of the given case and found therefrom that the mother of the writ petitioner has been found to be traceless from 02.04.2003. The declaration has been given by the competent court of civil jurisdiction in Title Suit No.37 of 2010 vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012, therefore, the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been filed but by that time, considerable period has been lapsed, i.e., 18 years, from the date of civil death as has been declared by the competent court of civil jurisdiction, therefore, we, after having considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under paragraphs-8 & 9 are of the view that no interference is required to be made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since herein also from the date of civil death, 18 years has already been lapsed and hence, the very purpose and object to provide appointment on compassionate ground to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises at the time of the death of the bread earner, has already defeated. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.