JUDGMENT : I.A. No.9685 of 2022 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 443 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 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.9685 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 443 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.381 of 2019 6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2808 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, has refused to grant any relief to the writ petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Atulya Prasad, was working at Primary Health Center, Koderma under the respondents has died in harness on 09.08.2008 leaving behind the writ petitioner and his legal heirs. The date of birth of the writ petitioner is 25.02.1995. It is the further fact of the case that the writ petitioner, at the time of death of his father was minor and his age was 13 years six months approximately. The elder brother of the writ petitioner, on the death of the deceased employee, has filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. His application, since, was kept pending, thereafter, the elder brother has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.18 of 2010 which was disposed of on 17.02.2010 with a direction to the respondents to take decision on the claim of one Bijay Kumar, the elder brother of the writ petitioner. The respondents-authorities have passed the reasoned order holding therein that as per the norms, no compassionate appointment can be granted as the spouse of the deceased employee was already working as ANM at Koderma. The respondents-authorities have passed the reasoned order holding therein that as per the norms, no compassionate appointment can be granted as the spouse of the deceased employee was already working as ANM at Koderma. The aforesaid order dated 11.05.2010 was also challenged by the elder brother of the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7526 of 2012 which was withdrawn vide order dated 21. 10.2016 with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The writ petitioner, thereafter, again filed a representation for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that his mother who was in service, has superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2012 and he has no alternative source of income. Since, grievance has not been redressed, therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2808 of 2018 has been filed seeking therein the direction for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the learned Single Judge has refused to pass any positive direction by taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner at the time of death of his father was minor and not eligible for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner which has been dismissed, cannot be said to be justified decision, for the reason, that on the date of death of the father, the elder brother of the writ petitioner has made an application, but his case was not considered on the ground that his mother was working as ANM, having the source of income and as such, has not come under the fold of consideration of financial crisis which is the object and aim to provide appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the mother was superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2012, an application has been filed by the writ petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, the ground which was negated on earlier occasion, i.e., the availability of financial means on the ground of mother having working as ANM, since was not available, therefore, the writ petitioner became eligible to be considered having no alternative source of financial means. But, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter, as such, the order impugned requires interference. 9. But, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter, as such, the order impugned requires interference. 9. Per contra, Mr. Md. Asghar, learned AC to Sr. SC-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground since is to be achieved by providing alternative financial means in penury due to sudden demise of the bread earner, but herein, the death occurred on 09.08.2008 but the application was filed by the writ petitioner after superannuation of his mother from service, i.e., on 20.04.2018 and as such, there is considerable delay of making application from the date of death of father of the writ petitioner who has died on 09.08.2008. As such, submission has been made that the application has been filed after delay of about 10 years and hence, it is not a fit case for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel, therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop, has submitted that the order impugned requires no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 11. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the very object and aim of the appointment on compassionate ground which is the issue involved in the writ petition. The State of Bihar has come out with a circular on 5th October, 1991, whereby and whereunder, the decision was taken to provide appointment on compassionate ground in order to provide succor due to sudden demise of bread earner. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while interpreting with the very object and aim of the appointment on compassionate ground in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vrs. Raja Ram, (2010) 15 SCC 366 , has held that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be provided with the object and aim to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent of the bereaved family. The Hon’ble Apex Court yet in the other judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vrs. Vrs. Raja Ram, (2010) 15 SCC 366 , has held that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be provided with the object and aim to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent of the bereaved family. The Hon’ble Apex Court yet in the other judgment rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138 , has been pleased to hold that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be provided after delay, since, if the dependent of the bereaved family has been able to survive, therefore, the same cannot be provided by way of compassionate ground. Since, appointment is to be provided on compassionate ground being in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be made as the alternative mode of appointment, as has been held in the case of Indian Bank & Ors. Vrs. Promila & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729 , wherein, at paragraph-4, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which reads as under:- “4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.” Herein, in the given facts of the case, undisputedly, the father of the writ petitioner, has died on 09.08.2008, thereafter, the elder brother of the writ petitioner had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the said application having not been decided, therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.18 of 2010 was filed. A coordinate learned Single Judge, of this Court while disposing of the writ petition, has granted liberty to the elder brother of the writ petitioner to approach the authority for consideration of his claim. The elder brother, in the light of the said order, has submitted his representation but the same was rejected on the ground that his mother was already working as ANM on the date when such application was filed. The elder brother, in the light of the said order, has submitted his representation but the same was rejected on the ground that his mother was already working as ANM on the date when such application was filed. The elder brother of the writ petitioner, thereafter, has again approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7526 of 2012 but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2016 with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The writ petitioner after lapse of two years from the date of withdrawal of the aforesaid writ petition, has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground by filing an application on 20.04.2018, but the authority concerned has not taken any decision, as such, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2808 of 2018 has been filed, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 12. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the fact that on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner, i.e., on 09.08.2008, the writ petitioner was only having 13 years of age since his date of birth as per the record is 25.02.1995. 13. The writ petitioner being minor on the date of death of his father, has taken as one of the cause for declining to pass positive direction by the learned Single Judge in favour of the writ petitioner. 14. The second ground has been taken that the elder brother has also prayed for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was rejected on the ground that the mother of the writ petitioner was already working as ANM, the post under the regular establishment of the State Government, therefore, the financial means having been available, the case of the elder brother has not been considered to be fit in absence of any penury. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has approached the authority by filing representation on 20.04.2018, i.e., after delay of 10 years from the date of death of his father. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has approached the authority by filing representation on 20.04.2018, i.e., after delay of 10 years from the date of death of his father. Thus, admittedly, there is delay of 10 years in filing an application for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, in our considered view, the purpose for which, the policy has been carved out to provide appointment on compassionate ground has already been meted out, since, the family of the deceased employee, has been able to survive for a period of 10 years, as such, it cannot be considered to be a case to provide appointment, since, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be made as the alternative mode for appointment being in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, while taking into consideration the issue of appointment on compassionate ground which was sought for after delay of about 10 years, which has been held therein, since, it was the bereaved family who has been able to survive for 9 years, therefore, in such circumstances, there cannot any direction to provide appointment on compassionate ground, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vrs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online 299, wherein, it has been held at para-8 and 9, which reads 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 family1. 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 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. 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. 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. This Court, after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the object to provide appointment on compassionate ground and coming to the fact of the given case that the death has admittedly occurred in the year, 2008 but the application was filed after lapse of about more than 10 years and as such, the object for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, has lost its force. 16. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter if declined to pass positive direction, the same cannot be said to suffer from any error. 17. Accordingly, this Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety and taking into consideration the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is of the considered view that the order impugned requires no interference. 18. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.