ORDER : 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07/25.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for monetary compensation in the light of the provisions contained under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), has been denied as not fit to be granted by observing that no interference is required in the order dated 21/23.09.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the husband of the appellant namely Prahlad Kumar was under the employment of the Respondent CCL in the capacity of Driller, CAT-IV, Kargali (UG), B&K Area: (i) The husband of the writ petitioner, Prahlad Kumar, died in harness on 02.08.2000 and accordingly Death-cumfamily Certificate was issued by the B.D.O. Bermo, Bokaro. (ii) On the basis of death certificate, the name of the husband of the writ petitioner was struck off from the roll of the Kargali UG Project w.e.f. the date of his death vide order dated 18.08.2000. (iii) The writ petitioner applied for her compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband by way of filing up the application in prescribed form for employment of the dependent under Clause 9.3.2/9.4.0 of the NCWA on 26.09.2001. (iv) The writ petitioner was made to run from pillars to posts and thereafter also no action was taken by the respondents and thereafter after a long period of 16 years the respondents finally woke up from slumber and vide order 21/23.09.2017 as contained in memo no. 2555 issued under the signature of the Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields Ltd. Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) rejected the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of limitation for applying for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid order dated 21/23.09.2017 also depicts that since there was a controversy of employment which was also claimed by the brother-in-law of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner herself, therefore, owing to the dispute no employment was granted. The aforesaid order dated 21/23.09.2017 also depicts that since there was a controversy of employment which was also claimed by the brother-in-law of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner herself, therefore, owing to the dispute no employment was granted. Furthermore, the respondents acted on the representation of the writ petitioner for employment made on 29.08.2016, wherein the writ petitioner contended that since her mother-in-law and brother-in-law both have died and therefore, her employment must be processed. 3. It appears from the pleadings of the writ petition, so far as undisputed facts are concerned is that the husband of the writ petitioner who was working as Driller, Category-IV, Kargali (UG), B&K Area died in harness on 02.08.2000: (i) The name of the husband of the writ petitioner was struck off from the roll of the Kargali UG Project w.e.f the date of his death vide order dated 18.08.2000. (ii) The writ petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment by filing an application 26.09.2001, however the same was rejected on the ground that the application has been filed after a lapse of 1 year 2 months from the date of death of the employee i.e. 02.08.2000. (iii) Thereafter she again represented for employment on 29.08.2016 but the same has been rejected holding therein that the appellant cannot be held to be dependent of the deceased employee as she was living separately as also the ground stipulated in the impugned order dated 21/23.09.2017 that by virtue of expiry of 17 years since the death of the employee i.e. on 02.08.2000, the basic purpose and object of compassionate appointment has since been evaporated. (iv) Petitioner being aggrieved with the said order approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that such claim has been made after expiry of 17 years as also the fact that appellant since, living in desertion, the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is not fit to be granted and hence the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that such claim has been made after expiry of 17 years as also the fact that appellant since, living in desertion, the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is not fit to be granted and hence the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted by placing the order impugned that the same suffers from infirmity as the very condition stipulated in the National Coal Wage Agreement has not been taken into consideration, wherein, the monetary compensation ought to have been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, since, even though she was in desertion, but that does not mean that the status of the wife with the husband was having no legal sanctity. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact in the right perspective. 5. While on the other hand learned counsel Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-CCL has submitted that the admitted fact is that the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground based upon her application dated 26.09.2001 has already been rejected as would appear from the reference so made in the impugned order dated 21/23.09.2017 as the same was filed after expiry of limitation i.e. after expiry of 1 year 2 months from the date of death of the employee. The appellant thereafter waited and when her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had died, again one application was made on 29.08.2016 seeking therein to issue appointment letter. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, submitted that once the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, the same having not been challenged before the higher forum, again making prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be said to have substance. The Administrative Authority by taking note thereof, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner coupled with the fact that after a lapse of 17 years there is no purpose to provide compassionate appointment. 6. Responding to the submission made to the effect that the writ petition is directed for monetary compensation, submission has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not a case of providing monetary compensation, rather, it is case to provide employment on compassionate ground. 6. Responding to the submission made to the effect that the writ petition is directed for monetary compensation, submission has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not a case of providing monetary compensation, rather, it is case to provide employment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, submitted that in the said premises, the impugned order may not be interfered with. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 8. It is an admitted case that the writ petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground as would appear from the application so made as appended in Page 70 of the paper book i.e. 26.09.2001, although no order of rejection of the claim made for the first time by virtue of the application dated 26.09.2001 has been appended to the paper book. But as would appear from the impugned order dated 21/23.09.2017, the request to provide compassionate appointment made by virtue of application dated 04.10.2001 has been rejected since it was filed after expiry of period of 1 year 2 months from the date of death of the employee i.e. 02.08.2000 as would appear from the fact taken in entirety that the rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, based upon the application dated 04.10.2001 has not been challenged in the writ petition. 9. It further appears that in the meanwhile the brother-in-law (Devar) of the writ petitioner had also made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, the same has not been provided in his favour also. 10. Thereafter the writ petitioner had again renewed her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground by filing representation on 29.08.2016. 11. The Authority concerned had passed an order on 21/23.09.2017 appended at page 72 of the paper book, impugned order herein. 12. 10. Thereafter the writ petitioner had again renewed her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground by filing representation on 29.08.2016. 11. The Authority concerned had passed an order on 21/23.09.2017 appended at page 72 of the paper book, impugned order herein. 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court as if the case is of monetary compensation and that is the reason he has pressed the condition stipulated in clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA more particularly (iii) thereof and the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized upon the said argument that the writ petitioner is entitled for monetary compensation but when we have perused the entire record, we found therefrom that the writ petitioner has never made an application for monetary compensation rather her case was all along for appointment on compassionate ground as would appear from the impugned order dated 21/23.09.2017, wherein the reference of the application for compassionate ground was there dated 04.10.2001, which has been rejected since the same was filed after expiry of 1 year 2 months from the date of death of the deceased employee. 13. It is an admitted fact that the order of rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground based upon application dated 04.10.2001 has never been challenged by the writ petitioner. However, a fresh application was filed on 29.08.2016 wherein it was contended that owing to the dispute of employment in respect of brother-in-law the issue of employment remained unsettled and since now both mother-in-law and brother-in-law have died, employment may be given to the writ petitioner. 14. The aforesaid fact has been considered by the authority concerned by making reference of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Rani Devi and Another, (1996) 5 SCC 308 wherein it has been laid down that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was a dependent on the deceased employee. By taking into consideration the reason that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further the same cannot be said to be proper after expiry of period of 17 years, therefore, the fact which is admitted herein is that all along the case of the appellant was for appointment on compassionate ground and it was never the pleading of the writ petitioner either in the Writ Court or before this Court that she be given the benefit of monetary compensation, even then the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon the Court that it is a fit case where at least monetary compensation can be given. 15. This Court fails to understand how such argument can be made when the said plea has never been raised before the Authority since under the NCWA the benefit of monetary compensation and appointment on compassionate ground is on two different parameters as would appear from the stipulation so made under clause 9.4.0 read with 9.5.0 as under clause 9.4.0 the monetary compensation is to be given in a case of medical unfitness whereas under clause 9.5.0 the monetary compensation has to be given if the widow of the concerned employee has not attained the age of 45 years then the appointment can be provided subject to her option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment, however if the widow is more than the age of 45 years then there is a condition to keep the minor in the live roster, meaning thereby, if the case of monetary compensation is to be considered taking into account the facts of the case, the same would be derived from the provision of 9.4.0 sub clause (iii) and 9.5.0 sub clause (ii & iii). 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the said premises then tried to impress upon the Court that it is a case of monetary compensation, which we are of the considered view is contrary to the pleadings as also the reason assigned by the Administrative Authority in the impugned order and further there is no reference of the monetary compensation. 17. 17. This Court after taking into consideration the fact that the issue of providing appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the writ petitioner based upon her application dated 04.10.2001 remained final, being unquestioned, and thereafter on 29.8.2016 fresh application was filed, the question is that once the claim of the appellant has already been rejected based upon her application dated 04.10.2001, which has been accepted by the writ petitioner, where is the question to agitate the same issue by filing representation after lapse of more than 15 years. 18. The law is well settled that after lapse of considerable period, the appointment cannot be granted in view of the ratio rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299, Para 9 of which is quoted hereunder: 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. 19. 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. 19. This Court after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and on consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge is of the considered view that thoughtful consideration has been given about the fact and implication of condition stipulated in the NCWA and as such found no reason to interfere in the same. According, the appeal is dismissed. 20. Pending I.A. are disposed of.