JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2009 (Annexure-7), whereby respondent no. 3 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for getting appointment on compassionate ground, illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely treating the petitioner w.e.f. date of birth as 01.03.1941, whereas 01.03.1941 is the date of birth of one another employee, namely Bhikhan Ganjhu was also working in the same colliery having his CMPF No. R/1/704/28, PIS No. 11150588, E/Code-455065 and that he had already retired under VRS on 30.11.1999 from the same colliery.” The Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to hold and declare that it is utterly illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide to treat the petitioner No. 1 husband case with that of the aforesaid Bhikhan Ganjhu’s case in as much as the respondents without tracing the petitioner’s husband’s original service records, assumed that his date of birth was 01.03.1941 and thus retired him illegally on 31.03.2001, but this 01.03.1941 is the date of birth of the aforesaid employee namely Bhikhan Ganjhu who had already retired under VRS on 30.11.1999 from the same colliery. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents concerned to appoint the petitioner No. 2 or any of her family members on compassionate ground, after adjudicating the issues raised in this writ application.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner No. 1 expired as back as on 27.10.2002 who at the relevant point of time had raised an industrial dispute with regard to his date of superannuation which was referred for adjudication under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act vide memo No. 04.04.2002 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel submits that said dispute has not yet been decided and during the pendency of that case, husband of the petitioner expired on 27.10.2002. 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner No. 1 had moved this court earlier in W.P. (S) No. 354 of 2007 and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.02.2009 directing the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner of compassionate appointment. He submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid order but the plea raised by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-5 has not been properly considered. He submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid order but the plea raised by the petitioners as contained in Annexure-5 has not been properly considered. He submits that respondents have made the husband of the petitioner No. 1 retire on 31.03.2001 without any record and such act is ex-facie illegal and on the date of death i.e. on 27.10.2002, he could not have been made to retire. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Para 12 and 13 of the writ petition which is quoted as under: “12. That the petitioner No. 1 husband clarified the matter before the respondents- authorities that at Tapin South, one employee, namely Bhikhan Ganjhu was also working in the same colliery having his CMPF No. R/1/704/28 PIS No. 11150588, E/Code-455065 and his date of birth was 1.3.1941 and that he had retired under VRS on 30.11.1999 from the same colliery. 13. That it is further relevant to mention here that in absence of records of petitioner no. 1 husband, the respondent-authorities entered the number of the said above named employee in place of his original records and issued payment slip, and that the petitioner No. 1 husband had brought to the knowledge of the respondent-authorities and requested them to rectify it, but it went in vain and the respondents remained lackadaisical.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that although no counter affidavit has been filed in the present case, but as per the case of the petitioners himself, the industrial dispute regarding dispute in date of birth has not been decided so far and it is also not clear from the records as to whether the industrial dispute has been pursued by the present petitioners or not. She submits that merely because an industrial dispute is pending, the same does not mean that the said age of the superannuation of the deceased employee can be shifted to another date. 6. She submits that as per the impugned order the husband of the petitioner No. 1 retired from the service of the company on 31.03.2001 and therefore he was not on roll on the date of his death i.e. on 27.10.2002 and consequently the petitioners are not entitled for any compassionate appointment. 7. 6. She submits that as per the impugned order the husband of the petitioner No. 1 retired from the service of the company on 31.03.2001 and therefore he was not on roll on the date of his death i.e. on 27.10.2002 and consequently the petitioners are not entitled for any compassionate appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that 20 years have already elapsed from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the entire purpose of grant of compassionate appointment has lost its effect. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that as per the writ records and the case of the petitioners, a dispute with regard to the date of retirement of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2 was raised by way of an industrial dispute as back as on 04.04.2002 and as per the petitioners, the same is still pending. After raising the dispute, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 expired on 27.10.2002. As per the impugned order dated 13.10.2009, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 superannuated w.e.f. 31.03.2001. 9. This court is of the considered view that an industrial dispute having been raised with regard to the date of birth/ date of superannuation of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2 was raised and remained pending and in the meantime the employee having expired the dispute remained unresolved as admittedly the industrial dispute was never taken to a logical end. 10. The employee expired on 27.10.2002 and on that day, he had already attained the age of superannuation as his disputed age of superannuation was with effect from 31.03.2001 which remained in the realm of dispute and subject matter of industrial dispute. On account of death of the employee after attaining the age of superannuation, the claim of compassionate appointment through this writ petition is devoid of any merits and is fit to be rejected. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and action of the respondents. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. 11. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and action of the respondents. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. 11. It is also important to note that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 expired in the year 2002 and more than 20 years have elapsed. Consequently, the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment has been lost, therefore, otherwise also, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 13. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.