JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 2199 of 2021: 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 31 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. 5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 31 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned. 6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal. LPA No. 393 of 2019: 7. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4165 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 25.01.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 8. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder : It is the case of the writ petitioner that the father had died in harness on 23.09.2000. The mother of the writ petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment and she had been offered appointment vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2002 but the mother could not qualify in the medical test and accordingly appointment letter stands recalled. Subsequently, she had died on 25.12.2003. The writ petitioner made an application on consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground before the concerned authority vide order dated 25.01.2014 but the claim has been rejected on the ground that such fresh application has been filed after expiry of more than four years from the date of death of the employee and further there is no concept of transferring or substituting an application for compassionate employment of another applicant. Being aggrieved, writ petition has been filed seeking therein a direction for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2014, but the writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019 against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 9. Being aggrieved, writ petition has been filed seeking therein a direction for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2014, but the writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019 against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner ought to have been kept in live roster since the day when the father died, he was minor and as per the condition contained in Clause 9.5.0(iii) which provides that if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept in a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years, as such, having not done so, gross illegality has been committed by the respondent-CCL which is contrary to the condition stipulated in the National Coal Wage Agreement but the said aspect of the matter has neither been considered by the authority concerned nor been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 10. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has vehemently opposed the submission by defending the order impugned and submits that there is no question of applicability of the condition stipulated under National Coal Wage Agreement as contained under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) since at the time of death of the employee, i.e., father of the writ petitioner, the appointment was provided in favour of the mother vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2002 but she having found to be medically unfit, therefore, the offer of appointment had been recalled. Further, the day when the offer of appointment provided to the mother of the writ petitioner was recalled, the elder brother of the writ petitioner was major, as such, as per the condition stipulated under Clause 9.5.0 (iii), there is no question of keeping the minor male dependant in a live roster, therefore, what has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner, is absolutely incorrect and not worth to be considered. 11. 11. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, since the writ petitioner has made an application after the offer of appointment issued in favour of his mother, having been recalled by that time, the said application was filed after the period of four years and five months which is beyond the period of limitation as provided for making an application and taking the aforesaid ground, the decision has been taken by the authority rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner which cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, if declined to interfere with the impugned order, it cannot be said to suffer from an error and as such, submission has been made that the instant appeal lacks merit. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 13. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, has found that the writ petitioner is questioning the decision of the authority by which the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected in providing appointment on compassionate ground. The ground has been taken that since the age of the writ petitioner at the time of death of his father was about 15 years, therefore, he ought to have been kept in a live roster in view of the condition stipulated under Clause 9.5.0 (iii). We have considered the aforesaid condition and deem it fit and proper to refer herein, which reads as under: “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant (i) …… (ii) …… (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.” 14. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.” 14. It is evident from the above condition as quoted and referred which provides that in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. The reference of clause 9.4.0 is there in the aforesaid clause, therefore, the same is also required to be considered by which the condition has been stipulated to provide employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. For ready reference, the aforesaid clause is being reproduced as under: “9.4.0 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. (i) The disablement of a worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. A joint committee will be constituted by the JBCCI for considering as to what constitutes general physical debility referred to hereinabove. This Committee will submit its report by 31.03.1996. In case of difference of opinion the matter will be referred to JBCCI which may appoint an Umpire to decide the same. The decision of the Umpire shall be binding on the parties. (iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependant on the earning of the employees may be considered. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of Clause 9.5.0. If no such direct dependant is available for employment younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependant on the earning of the employees may be considered. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of Clause 9.5.0. (iv) The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged about not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. 15. Thus, it is evident by reading together the conditions stipulated under clauses 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 (iii) that in case appointment is not being provided in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, the provision has been made therein to keep the male dependant having the age of 15 years and above on live roster and the moment he attains the age of 18 years, the employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications will be provided. 16. This Court, in order to examine the aforesaid fact, while hearing the matter on 27.07.2022, had specifically directed the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL to file an affidavit on the plea taken that one son was major at the time when the father of the writ petitioner had died. The said order reads as under: “It is regretted that despite our clear-cut direction though it is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 21.07.2022 that two sons, two daughters and wife (widow) were dependent of the deceased employee but it is no where stated that how the sons and daughters were dependent. Our question was clear that if they were minor then why they were not kept on live roster which would be apparent from the order dated 08.06.2022. At the time of hearing it is being stated that one son was major. Let the statement come on affidavit so that there cannot be any dispute on the factual aspect. Let a proper affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent-B.C.C.L. Put up this case on 23.08.2022.” 17. At the time of hearing it is being stated that one son was major. Let the statement come on affidavit so that there cannot be any dispute on the factual aspect. Let a proper affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent-B.C.C.L. Put up this case on 23.08.2022.” 17. An affidavit has been filed in pursuance of the aforesaid order on behalf of the CCL on 12.08.2022, wherein, at paragraph-6, it has been stated by making reference of the LTC Form filled on 04.01.1988 referring therein the names of the dependant with their age as on 01.12.1983. The same reads as under: “6. That it is stated that as per LTC Form filled on 04.01.1988, the following dependants are mentioned with their age as on 01.12.1983:- (i) Jagdish Munda (Self) 25 years, (ii) Manchariya (Wife) 20 years, (iii) Jwala (son) 05 years, (iv) Rupan Devi (mother) 50 years, (v) Hira (sister) 12 years, (vi) Bira (sister) 10 years.” 18. Further, at paragraph-7, it has been stated that under the LTC Form for the period 1995-2002 filled up on 14.05.1999, the names of the legal dependants have been mentioned. The same reads as under: “7. That it is stated that under the LTC Form for the period 1995-2002 filled up on 14.05.1999, the following legal dependants have been mentioned:- (i) Jagdish Munda (Self), (ii) Manchariya (Wife) 31 years, (iii) Rupan Devi (mother) 61 years, (iv) Jwala (son) 16 years, (v) Ravi (son), age not given, (vi) Rubi (daughter), age not given, (vii) Rajan (son), age not given.” 19. It has further been stated as under paragraph-8 thereof that the father of the appellant died on 23.09.2000. At that time, the son Jwala was apparently aged about 17 years and the age of the present appellant was not disclosed. As the widow of the deceased employee, i.e., the mother of the appellant, applied for and offered employment on 08.08.2002, the question of keeping any other dependant on a live roster did not arise. Subsequently, the mother of the appellant was found medically unfit and at that time, the brother of the appellant had already become major but had never applied for employment. Subsequently, the mother of the appellant was found medically unfit and at that time, the brother of the appellant had already become major but had never applied for employment. The writ petitioner, for the first time, made an application for employment on 17.03.2005, i.e., after more than five years of death of his father and more than two years since his mother was found medically unfit, therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner had been rejected. So far as the claim of the writ petitioner that his elder brother was medically unfit, it has been stated that no such information regarding the said fact is available on record. 20. Therefore, this Court, after going through the aforesaid statement, has found that the fact about availability of male dependant is not in dispute as would appear from the reference of age as per the LTC Form as under paragraph-7 of the aforesaid affidavit as quoted and referred above. 21. Thus, what has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner ought to have been kept on a live roster the day when his father died, is not found to have substance due to the following reasons: (i) Admittedly, the day when the father of the appellant-writ petitioner died, i.e., on 23.09.2000, the appointment has been offered to his mother on 08.08.2002 but, she was found medically unfit, therefore, such offer of appointment had been recalled; (ii) The mother had made an application for appointment basis upon which the employment was offered on 08.08.2002, as such, there is no question of keeping the male dependant, i.e., the elder son, i.e., Jwala, who was 16-17 years as on the date of death of his father, since the mother of the writ petitioner was offered with the employment; (iii) The mother of the writ petitioner, however, died subsequently, thereafter, the writ petitioner made an application on 17.03.2005 admittedly after the lapse of more than five years from the date of death of his father and considering the same as a fresh application, if the respondent has taken the ground of limitation, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 22. 22. This Court, after discussing the factual aspect as above, has considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration paragraph-5 of the impugned order and by taking note of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.05.2017 in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Ranchi and Ors. vs. Sanjay Kumar and Anr. passed in L.P.A. No. 562 of 2014, wherein, it has been held that the compassionate appointment has to be offered only one of the family member and for one or other reason, if the same is not implemented, the same cannot be extended to other member of the family. 23. The learned Single Judge has passed the order after taking into consideration the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court by following the principle laid down therein which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 24. Further, this Court has also considered that that spirit of appointment to be given after death of the deceased employee in order to meet out the immediate succor, herein, the father of the writ petitioner died on 23.09.2000 and since then, about 22 years have passed, therefore, at such a belated stage, there cannot be any direction to provide appointment on the ground of death of the bread earner as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Haryana State Electricity Board Vrs. Naresh Tanwar and Another, (1996) 8 SCC 23 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to grant relief to the dependent of an employee who was minor at the time of death of the bread earning Government employee. In State of U.P. and Others Vrs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. It was further observed that none of these considerations can operate while the application is made after a long period of time. In Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others Vrs. K. R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206 the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration its various judgments, reiterated that the appointment to the public service can only be made on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to general constitutional mandate in the interest of justice under peculiar circumstances. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred herein above, it is settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government / public service. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment for the dependent of the deceased- Government servant is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family whose sole bread earner died leaving the family in lurch. The purpose is to enable the family to overcome its immediate financial needs. The compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of course, and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors. Since compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permits employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that the compassionate appointment is regulated by law / rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. 25. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no error, accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.