JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant claiming compassionate appointment, monetary compensation and death-cum-retiral benefits as per National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (in short, “NCWA- VI”) in lieu of civil death of her husband as well as challenging termination order of her husband dated 20.07.1989, has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches in preferring the suit in the year 2012 for declaration of civil death of her husband and in filing the writ petition. 2. In course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has waived the claim for compassionate appointment and has confined his argument with respect to the payment of monetary benefit to the appellant as per NCWA-VI as well as death-cum-retiral benefits of her husband whose civil death has been declared in terms with the judgment dated 22.04.2017 (decree dated 02.05.2017) passed in Title Suit No. 01 of 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the widow of late Bhagaw who was working as a P/R worker in Kargali Washery, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). Her husband was missing since 17.10.1988 while he was on duty and the said information was given to the management of the CCL. The appellant and her family members tried to search and waited for him till 25.10.1988, but he did not return. Thereafter, the appellant informed Bermo Police and also gave a written report about missing of her husband. 4. It has further been submitted that the management of the CCL initiated an enquiry against the appellant’s husband for his long unauthorized absence and a chargesheet was issued against him vide letter dated 30.03.1989 as well as an enquiry committee was constituted to look into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the Project Officer, Kargali Washery (the respondent no. 4) vide letter dated 26.05.1989 stating that the charge of unauthorized absence against the appellant’s husband was proved beyond doubt and on the basis of the said report, the service of her husband was terminated with immediate effect vide office order dated 20.07.1989. 5. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the Project Officer, Kargali Washery (the respondent no. 4) vide letter dated 26.05.1989 stating that the charge of unauthorized absence against the appellant’s husband was proved beyond doubt and on the basis of the said report, the service of her husband was terminated with immediate effect vide office order dated 20.07.1989. 5. It has also been contended that the appellant sought declaration of civil death of her husband by filing Title Suit No. 01 of 2012 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bermo at Tenughat and the said suit was allowed in her favour vide judgment dated 22.04.2017 and decree dated 02.05.2017 whereby declaration was made to the effect that her husband had attained his civil death. Thereafter, the appellant, vide letter dated 14.11.2017, made an application before the respondent no.4 for providing her compassionate appointment and death benefits, however the same was rejected by the said respondent vide letter dated 16.05.2019 on the ground that there was no provision under NCWA-VI for providing employment to the dependent of an employee who had already been dismissed/terminated from service on being civil dead. The appellant thereafter, filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 with following prayers: - (i) For quashing the order dated 16.05.2019 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. (ii) For commanding upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in pursuance of the relevant clauses of the NCWA. (iii) For quashing the order of termination dated 20.07.1989 whereby the husband of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence. (iv) For issuance of direction upon the respondents for payment of monetary compensation in terms of relevant clauses of the NCWA as well as death cum retiral dues to the petitioner. 6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment/order dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 observing inter alia that there was a considerable delay and laches on the part of the appellant and though the suit was preferred in the year 2012, yet there was no explanation with respect to the delay caused between the year 1989 when the services of the husband of the appellant was terminated and the year 2012 when the suit was preferred by the appellant seeking declaration of civil death of her husband. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that after declaration of civil death of the appellant’s husband, the order of his termination pursuant to a departmental enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer for the alleged unauthorized absence, is meaningless and non est in the eye of law. Moreover, the order of termination passed in the ex-parte departmental proceeding will also be of no legal consequence as the proceeding against a dead person could not have been initiated or continued. 8. It has also been contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the appellant could have been entitled to make a legal claim for monetary benefit under relevant clauses of NCWA-VI only after declaration of civil death of her husband. The issue of limitation was not raised by the respondent-CCL before the Civil Court though the said issue was formulated in the suit, however the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the point of belated claim ignoring the said aspect. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the husband of the appellant was terminated from service w.e.f. 20.07.1989 due to unauthorized absence from duty and after 23 years of the said termination, a suit was filed in the year 2012 seeking declaration of his civil death and as such, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay and laches. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that since a competent civil court has declared civil death of the appellant’s husband, she is at least entitled to the monetary compensation in terms with the relevant provisions of the NCWA-IV. 12. Though the factum of declaration of civil death of the appellant’s husband has not been denied by the respondent-CCL, yet it has rejected her claim of monetary compensation on the ground that before declaration of civil death, the appellant’s husband was already terminated from service due to unauthorized absence and as such, there was no question of grant of monetary compensation to her. 13. 13. On bare perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the husband of the appellant was missing since 18.10.1988 and the information to that effect was given to the management of respondent-CCL as well as to the police, however an ex-parte departmental proceeding for unauthorized absence was initiated against him and was finally terminated from service. A suit being Title Suit No. 01 of 2012 filed by the appellant was decreed in her favour and her husband was declared civil dead, however the management of CCL rejected the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment and monetary compensation on the ground that there was no provision in the NCWA-VI to provide appointment to the dependent of an employee who was dismissed/terminated from service prior to declaring as civil dead. 14. We are of the considered view that since the husband of the appellant was missing since 18.10.1988, his termination from service on the ground of unauthorized absence that too in an exparte departmental proceeding was bad in law. Moreover, subsequently her husband was declared civil dead by a competent court of law. The termination of an employee for unauthorized absence can only be done if it is found that he is avoiding the duty without taking permission from the competent authority, however if the employee himself was missing, the question of taking permission by him for his absence did not arise. 15. So far the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches is concerned, we have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 605 wherein it has been held that the issue of delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the court. The condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the writ courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 16. The condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the writ courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 16. Thus, there is no rigid rule to reject every writ petition which is filed belatedly, rather each case should be dealt with looking to its facts and circumstances. If the circumstances of a case shock the judicial conscience of the writ court, it may exercise discretionary power under the plenary jurisdiction to do the substantial justice. 17. In the case in hand, we are of the view that the termination of the appellant’s husband from service on the ground of his unauthorized absence was itself bad in law and as such, the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 18. Consequently, order/judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 is set aside. The termination order of the appellant’s husband dated 20.07.1989 is also quashed. The respondent-CCL is accordingly directed to pay the monetary compensation as well as death-cum-retiral benefit of the deceased employee to the appellant as per relevant provisions of NCWA-VI within four weeks from the date of this order. 19. The present appeal is accordingly allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.