JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2500 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has refused to interfere with the order as contained under memo no. 3436 dated 21.03.2012 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, are as hereunder: The mother-in-law of the writ petitioner was a regular employee under respondents who had died in harness on 07.04.1994. The father-in-law of the writ petitioner had subsequently died on 13.12.2000. Since there was no male dependent in the family of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner, being second son-in-law, had applied for compassionate appointment vide application dated 19.11.1997, which was forwarded. Since no decision was taken, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2010 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and pass a reasoned order. In pursuance of direction of this Court, an order was passed on 21.03.2012, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner, which has been assailed by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2500 of 2012. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after the period of limitation. The learned Single Judge has also taken the ground, while not interfering with the impugned decision, that the writ petitioner was not fully dependent upon his mother-in- law. As per the scheme, the son-in-law can only be held to be entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground if he is fully dependent upon deceased employee. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. As per the scheme, the son-in-law can only be held to be entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground if he is fully dependent upon deceased employee. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that there is no delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment and even if the application was time barred, the same was not decided immediately so that the writ petitioner would not have any expectation of job under the National Coal Wage Agreement and after being denied, he would have searched for another job. The further issue has been raised that as to why the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was kept pending for 15 years and decision was taken only after a direction of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2010. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL, has submitted that there is no delay in considering the application of the writ petitioner since the same was rejected and communicated forthwith to the writ petitioner as would appear communicating order of rejection of his claim dated 06.11.1999 but even then the writ petitioner has not questioned the said order after its communication rather the writ petition was filed after a lapse of more than 12 years. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the circular which was prevalent during the relevant time about making application for appointment on compassionate ground by which the period for making such application was six months but admittedly, the application was filed after lapse of two and half years. Further, since the writ petition has only been filed after lapse of more than 12 years, the claim of the writ petitioner, at such belated stage, cannot be considered. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 7. The admitted fact, in the case in hand, is that the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner died in harness on 07.04.1994. The application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 19.11.1997. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 7. The admitted fact, in the case in hand, is that the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner died in harness on 07.04.1994. The application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 19.11.1997. It is not in dispute that on the date when the mother-in-law of the writ petitioner died, the period of limitation for filing such application for appointment on compassionate ground was six months. Admittedly, the application for compassionate ground was filed after lapse of about more than two and half years, which was rejected and communicated to the writ petitioner vide communication dated 06.11.1999. Since the writ petitioner has taken the ground of belated rejection of his claim therefore, this Court has passed an order on 07.09.2021, which is quoted as hereunder: “Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. A direct question was put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL that the CCL is all the time agitating its stand that the claim by the writ petitioner was made after three years, i.e., after a delay of two and half years which should have been made within six months which was later on extended upto one and half years and benefit thereof was given with retrospective effect but even considering that also the application would be time barred. However, at the same time another question arises as to if the petitioner's application was time barred, why the same was not decided immediately so that he would not have any expectation for finding a job under the National Coal Wages Agreement and after being unsuccessful, he could have searched for another job. Why his petition was kept pending for about fifteen years and why a decision was taken only after a direction of this Court vide order dated 14.7.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2010 that the same should be taken as a representation and decided by the authority. In answer to the aforesaid query, learned counsel seeks adjournment for the purpose of seeking instruction as to whether any order was passed on the application filed by the writ petitioner or not? In answer to the aforesaid query, learned counsel seeks adjournment for the purpose of seeking instruction as to whether any order was passed on the application filed by the writ petitioner or not? Though the same is not available in the records of the Writ Court and it does not appear that such stand was taken by the CCL, however, since the issue of delay in filing of the application has been raised by the CCL itself and we are questioning the delay made by the CCL in deciding the matter, we are inclined to grant further time for that purpose. Let instructions be sought and affidavit be filed informing us when the decision was taken on the application filed by the writ petitioner for his appointment under the National Coal Wages Agreement and a copy of the order be appended with the counter affidavit. The respondents-CCL will further state on affidavit that in what manner, under what mode and on what date that order was communicated to the writ petitioner. Let the respondents-CCL also explain, that in case no order was passed and the matter, after filing of the application, remained pending before the authority for about 15 years and a decision could only be taken after the direction of the learned Single Bench of this Court, why not exemplary cost should be imposed upon the concerned officers of the respondents-CCL, as the writ petitioner was made to suffer for more than a decade and half. It is made clear that since we have almost concluded the hearing of the matter, we will not be inclined to extend the date for filing such affidavit. It is expected that no adjournment would be sought by the parties on the next date of hearing. It is further indicated that a copy of the affidavit should be served upon the writ petitioner-appellant well in advance. Let this matter be listed on 21.09.2021.” 8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents-CCL on 05.01.2022 wherefrom it is evident that the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner was well communicated on 06.11.1999. Therefore, the plea, which was taken before this Court about delay in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner, is absolutely incorrect and misconceived argument made on behalf of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the plea, which was taken before this Court about delay in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner, is absolutely incorrect and misconceived argument made on behalf of the writ petitioner. The fact remains that during the relevant time the period of limitation for filing application on compassionate ground was six months but admittedly, it was filed after lapse of two and half years. Therefore, if the ground taken for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner of submission of the application form, after lapse of period of six months, cannot be said to be unjustified. Further, due communication was made to the writ petitioner about rejection of claim of the writ petitioner vide communication dated 06.11.1999, as would appear from the documents appended to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CCL-Management dated 05.01.2022 but the writ petition was filed in the year 2012, which admittedly is after inordinate delay of about more than 12 years. In the case in hand, the litigant is seeking an appointment on compassionate ground under provision of National Coal Wage Agreement. The management-CCL has come up with an office memorandum under which application has to be submitted within the stipulated period of time and during the relevant period it was six months but the application was filed after lapse of two and half years and as such on this ground if the application of the writ petitioner was rejected, it cannot be said to be erroneous decision of the respondent authorities. Further, the writ petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of more than 12 years and therefore, according to our considered view, the writ petition is hopelessly barred by principles of delay and laches which is having paramount consideration, more particularly, in the case where the consideration is to be made for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. This Court deems it fit and proper, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, to refer certain judicial pronouncements in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held that as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held that as a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if it is satisfied that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the object of compassionate appointment held that the object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 when the application is made after a long period of time. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs. 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 the 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. 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. The appointment on compassionate ground is to be made in order to provide immediate relief to the dependent of the deceased employee so that the bereaved family may not be forced to starvation but in the case in hand, the application for appointment on compassionate appointment has been filed after a period of limitation of six months and further, the writ petition has been filed after lapse of about 12 years and now about 27 years has lapsed since the date of death of the deceased employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court, recently, in a case where appointment on compassionate ground has been declined, since, the application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed after more than 10 years the employee concerned had gone missing, in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299, at paragraphs 8 and 9 has held as hereunder: “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 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. 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.” As such, it is not a fit case wherein the appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered to be given in favour of the writ petitioner. Further, the learned Single Judge has considered the issue of dependency of the writ petitioner, who as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, cannot be considered to be the first dependent of the deceased employee. It has been provided under the provision of Clause 9.3.0 that the case of the son-in-law is to be considered if found to be fully dependent upon the deceased employee but no such document has been placed by the writ petitioner to substantiate this fact. It has been provided under the provision of Clause 9.3.0 that the case of the son-in-law is to be considered if found to be fully dependent upon the deceased employee but no such document has been placed by the writ petitioner to substantiate this fact. After taking into consideration this aspect also the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order. 10. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances as referred hereinabove, is of the view that, while refusing to interfere with the impugned decision of the administrative authority, the learned Single Judge has committed no error. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed.