JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached before this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 25/28.07.2020, passed by respondent no. 5, whereby claim of the petitioner for employment under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA has been rejected by totally non-speaking order. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.05.2011, passed by respondent no. 7 whereby husband of the petitioner – Saldeo Oraon was removed from service after his death on 18.04.2011 and on this account the order dated 24.05.2011 of removal from service is void-ab-initio and nullity of law in view of fact that no order of removal from service can be passed against a dead person as departmental proceeding automatically lapses/ terminates/abates against the employee by reason of death. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for employment in the respondent Company under the provision of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA. 3. As per factual matrix, husband of the petitioner namely Saldeo Oraon was appointed in the service of M/s. CCL in Argadda Colliery on 09.10.1990 as Piece Rated worker and thereafter he performed his duties with utmost sincerity and punctuality. Petitioner’s husband suffered from depression in August, 2007 and, therefore, he consulted the Company’s doctor on various dates. Thereafter, all of a sudden on 16.10.2007, petitioner’s husband left the house at around 11:00 p.m, and did not return back. On 28.10.2007 petitioner lodged ‘Sanha’ in Giddi Police Station, Hazaribagh regarding missing of her husband which was entered vide Station Diary No. 406/2007, dated 28.10.2007. Thereafter due information was also given to the respondents along with a copy of missing report. After missing of the husband, petitioner was left alone to support five minor daughters and one son. Petitioner regularly represented before the respondents to support her, but no heed was paid. Thereafter, on 24.04.2011, petitioner came to know that her husband had already died in a village in Latehar. Thereafter, the information regarding his death was given to the respondents with a request to appoint her in service. Death certificate of the deceased was also given to the respondents with further reminder to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA. 4. Thereafter, the information regarding his death was given to the respondents with a request to appoint her in service. Death certificate of the deceased was also given to the respondents with further reminder to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA. 4. Upon the repeated representation of the petitioner, her case was duly examined for appointment under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA and petitioner was asked to appear before the Screening Committee on 08.02.2014. Thereafter, matter was sent before the CCL Headquarter. However, vide letter dated 25/28.07.2020, claim of the petitioner was rejected by totally non-speaking order. Petitioner was also served with office order dated 24.05.2011, which was order of removal from service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 5. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in view of Standing Orders i.e. Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA. Learned counsel further argues that earlier also Management had considered appointment of the petitioner on the ground of death. The deceased husband was the sole bread earner of the family and as he has died, one of the eligible members of his family was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA. Learned counsel further argues that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order rather the order is cryptic, non-speaking and capricious. Drawing attention of the Court towards counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that though in paragraph-21, several reasons have been assigned in which it has clearly been mentioned that since husband of the petitioner was terminated from the service, no compassionate appointment can be issued against a dismissed person. The said contention of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law. No order of termination can be issued against a dead person against the settled legal proposition of law. Learned counsel further argues that even the reasons assigned in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted as the same ought to have been mentioned in the impugned order. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the celebrated Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 as also in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the celebrated Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 as also in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1971) 1 SCC 405 and submits that impugned order cannot be improved by way of reasoning assigned in the counter affidavit. 6. Per contra Counter affidavit has been filed. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel representing Central Coalfields Limited assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in no way petitioner is entitled for compassionate grounds. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of death, family was not dependent on the deceased-husband and as such question does not arises for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel further argues that even it was a belated claim as more than 11 years had already elapsed and as such, the same was rightly turned down by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that it is not a case of deemed death rather it is a case of abandance of service and, therefore, claim of the petitioner is not justified. Justifying the impugned order and placing heavy reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others Vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 299 as also in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. B.S. Bhadoriya passed in C.A. No. 4588 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34238 of 2012], learned counsel submits that petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly the deceased – husband died on 18.04.2011. The same was informed to the respondent authorities. Respondents immediately issued an order of removal from the service on 24.05.2011 as if they were waiting for the information regarding death of husband of the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents – Central Coalfields Ltd. that it was a belated claim and the petitioner was not dependent upon the deceased-husband, is not accepted to this Court. Respondents immediately issued an order of removal from the service on 24.05.2011 as if they were waiting for the information regarding death of husband of the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents – Central Coalfields Ltd. that it was a belated claim and the petitioner was not dependent upon the deceased-husband, is not accepted to this Court. From perusal of the Judgment relied upon by the respondetns – Central Coalfields Ltd., Para-8, it is crystal clear that the Court has observed that 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, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Court after observing that the authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that 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. 9. This view of the Hon’ble Apex Court was never considered by the respondents nor any report was brought to the knowledge of the Court or even handed over to the petitioner to show that petitioner was not dependent on the deceased-husband. It appears that the entire exercise of the respondents was to debar the petitioner from getting compassionate appointment. Admittedly compassionate appointment is given to meet sudden death or the crisis which has arisen due to death of the sole bread earner. 10. In view of any document brought on record to show that petitioner was not dependent on the sole bread winner, this Court is fully satisfied that it is a fit case in which respondents ought to have considered case for compassionate appointment. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, rule and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 25/28.07.2020, passed by respondent no. 5 rejecting claim of the petitioner for employment under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA as also the order dated 24.05.2011, passed by respondent no. 7 whereby husband of the petitioner – Saideo Oraon was removed from service after his death on 18.04.2011, are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the same are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 rejecting claim of the petitioner for employment under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA as also the order dated 24.05.2011, passed by respondent no. 7 whereby husband of the petitioner – Saideo Oraon was removed from service after his death on 18.04.2011, are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the same are hereby quashed and set aside. In view of quashment of impugned orders, I, hereby, direct the respondents to reconsider case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground and after giving ample opportunity of being heard, issue letter of appointment in her favour within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.