JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.01.2009 (part of Annexure-7 series) passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected without proper verification of the claim/entitlement of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 5357 of 2007 dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure-1). 4. The petitioner had moved this court earlier in W.P. (S) No. 5357 of 2007 for issuance of direction to the respondents to take immediate steps for disposal of the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. It was also the case of the petitioner that he was kept in live roster awaiting approval of competent authority. A stand was taken by the respondents that there is dispute with regard to credential and entitlement of petitioner since petitioner’s name did not reflect as nominee in any of the official prescribed records filled-up by the deceased father. Under such circumstances, vide order dated 27.11.2008 the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent authority is directed to take a decision on the matter in accordance with law by a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The competent authority will also consider the payment of monetary compensation as provided under N.C.W. Agreement in accordance with law.” 5. On 25.11.2019, following order was passed: “It appears that petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 07.10.2015 wherein at Annexure-E at page 14 which is Schedule-‘C’ Form in which names of family members of deceased Deglal Singh is mentioned as Sukari Devi, wife, Bimli Kumari, daughter, Jaswa Kumari, daughter and Gulab Singh son of deceased Deglal Singh. On 25.11.2019, following order was passed: “It appears that petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 07.10.2015 wherein at Annexure-E at page 14 which is Schedule-‘C’ Form in which names of family members of deceased Deglal Singh is mentioned as Sukari Devi, wife, Bimli Kumari, daughter, Jaswa Kumari, daughter and Gulab Singh son of deceased Deglal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. has filed counter affidavit annexing Annexure-G at page-32 which is a letter issued from the office of Regional Commissioner, CMPF whereby doubt has been created that during his life time in 1972, deceased Deglal Singh has nominated Smt. Kumari Ghatwarin as his wife but presently Smt. Sukri Devi, mother of the petitioner has claimed for release of provident fund amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 07.10.2015 which reveals that Rs. 2,52,210/- has been paid to Smt. Sukari Devi W/o Late Deglal Singh, vide Annexure-F and Rs. 2,52,210/- has been paid to Sri Gulab Singh, Son of late Deglal Singh vide Annexure-G. Learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. is directed to take instruction respect of the grievance of the petitioner as mentioned at paragraph no. 1 of the writ application. List this case after four weeks.” 6. This court further finds that in spite of order dated 25.11.2019 no affidavit was filed by the respondent CCL and the dispute with regard to father’s name of the petitioner continued. Learned counsel for the respondents has expressed that some clarification was required to be done from C.M.P.F and following order dated 25.02.2022 was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of order dated 25.11.2019, no affidavit has been filed by the respondent CCL. Learned counsel for the respondents has expressed that some clarification was required to be done from C.M.P.F and following order dated 25.02.2022 was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of order dated 25.11.2019, no affidavit has been filed by the respondent CCL. He submits that in order dated 25.11.2019, a specific reference was made to Annexure-E of supplementary affidavit dated 07.10.2015 to indicate that the identity of the petitioner being son of Deglal Singh is no longer in dispute and C.M.P.F. has also released the amount in favour of the persons whose details have been mentioned in Annexure-E. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that some verification is required to be made from the office of CMPF and the competent personnel of respondent will personally visit the office of Regional Commissioner, CMPF on 03.03.2022 for the required verification regarding the present petitioner as well as his mother and other documents which have been annexed along with supplementary-affidavit in the present case. He submits that upon verification, the affidavit will be filed latest by 10.03.2022. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this case is adjourned at the request of the respondents. It is further observed that the respondents would forward a copy of the present order in advance to the Regional Commissioner, CMPF such that the verification is positively done on 03.03.2022 with the cooperation of the office of Regional Commissioner, CMPF. Post this case on 11.03.2022 and the required supplementary counter affidavit should be filed latest by 10.03.2022.” 7. Pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2022 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent CCL. As per the supplementary counter affidavit, necessary verification was done which included verification from the concerned person of CCL namely Shri Bharat Ji, upon whose verification the CMPF amount was released in favour of the mother and son of the petitioner. Upon verification of the various documents submitted by the petitioner, it reflected from the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-A series dated 09.05.2022 that fathers’ name of the petitioner has been found to be Deglal Singh who is the ex-employee of CCL. 8. This court further finds that impugned order rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been passed primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not in a position to prove the name of his father before the authorities. 8. This court further finds that impugned order rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been passed primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not in a position to prove the name of his father before the authorities. In view of the subsequent development, which has been brought on record vide aforesaid supplementary affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that matter may now be remitted to the respondent No. 1 for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time frame may be fixed, as the matter has remained pending before this court since 2009 and the surviving grievance of the petitioner is with regard to his compassionate appointment. So far as CMPF amount is concerned, same has already been received by the petitioner/his mother. 10. After going through the impugned order dated 27.01.2009 this court finds that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the records of the company which was the prime reason for rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. During the pendency of this case, after due verification, the CMPF amount has already been paid to the petitioner/his mother namely Sukri Devi. During the pendency of this case, the respondent by virtue of orders passed by this court have also verified the fathers’ name of the petitioner and have found that the petitioner is son of Deglal Singh, the ex-employee of CCL. Since the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been primarily rejected on account of confusion regarding the fact as to whether the petitioner was son of Deglal Singh or not, this cloud having been cleared now as per the present records of this case, the impugned order dated 27.01.2009 which is a part of Annexure-7 series of the present writ petition is set aside to the extent it denies the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is no longer in dispute that the petitioner is the son of Deglal Singh, the ex-employee of CCL. Consequently, the matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 11. Consequently, the matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 11. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.