Jharkhand High Court
Satya Narayan Choudhary vs Central Coalfields Limited (A ... on 26 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 157, (2007) 3 JLJR 692 (2009) 1 JCR 654 (JHA), (2009) 1 JCR 654 (JHA)
Author: M. Karpaga Vinayagam
Bench: M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
1. Refusal to show compassion on the part of the employer for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the son of the deceased employee, has driven the petitioner to file this writ petition, seeking for compassionate appointment.
2. Ramautar Chaudhary, the father of the petitioner was a permanent employee of Central Coalfields Limited, holding the post of Security Sub Inspector, Religara Colliery. He died on 2.8.1999. After the death of her husband, the petitioner's mother made an application on 10.04.2000 to the Project Officer of the Company for appointment of her son, the petitioner herein on compassionate ground, under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA V (National Coal Wage Agreement - V). The said application was rejected by the authority of the respondent company on 09.05.2006 on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was not made within the period of time fixed. Challenging the same, Satya Narayan Choudhary, the son of the deceased, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition seeking for the quashing of the rejection order dated 09.05.2006 issued by the respondents and to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner under Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA.
3. When this writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents cited number of judgments of Division Bench giving the contrary views with regard to the period of time within which the application has to be made. Therefore, by the order dated 20.04.2007, the learned Single Judge referred the matter before the appropriate Bench to decide the question in issue. That is how this matter has come up before this Bench.
4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The father of the petitioner, who was a permanent employee of the CCL, died in harness on 02.08.1999.
(b) After the death of petitioner's father, his mother, namely, Smt. Sugia Devi made an application on 10.04.2000 before the respondents for compassionate appointment for her son, the petitioner herein.
(c) On 29.05.2000, the application was returned by the respondents on the ground that the delay in filing the application after expiry of six months' period was not satisfactorily explained. Further the applicant was asked to give more relevant particulars for considering the compassionate appointment.
(d) Giving those relevant particulars as well as the explanation for the delay, the petitioner's mother sent back the application stating that her family had no knowledge about the six months' time period fixed for presenting the application.
(e) On receipt of the same, the respondents, through their letter dated 11.02.2001, directed the petitioner's mother to submit succession certificate after obtaining the same from the Court.
(f) The mother of the petitioner sent two letters on 29.08.2001 and 16.09.2002 requesting the respondents to consider the appointment for her son even without the succession certificate as she would not be able to incur the expenditure towards court expenses.
(g) However, the said request was rejected.
(h) Therefore, the petitioner's mother approached the Court at Daltonganj and ultimately obtained the succession certificate in favour of her son dated 16.06.2004.
(i) Thereafter, the said certificate was submitted before the respondents on 13.12.2004.
(j) On receipt of the same, the respondents issued a letter on 19.01.2006 directing the petitioner to appear before the Screening Committee for screening on 21.01.2006.
(k) Accordingly, the petitioner appeared with all the documents before the Committee, which interviewed him on 21.01.2006.
(I) He was, then, declared successful by the Screening Committee.
(m) When the petitioner along with his family members were waiting for the appointment order, to their shock, they received a letter dated 09.05.2006 from the respondents intimating to the petitioner and family members that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner was only after expiry of limitation period of six months from the date of death of the employee. Having aggrieved over the rejection, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. The crux of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner's father died on 02.08.1999. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 10.04.2000 and the same was received by the respondents on 19.04.2000. The said application was kept pending for six years. Ultimately, after six years, i.e., on 09.05.2006, the respondents rejected the application on the ground that the same was submitted after expiry of six months' period from the date of death as fixed in the Circular dated 12.12.1995. Though the said Circular dated 12.12.1995 had been modified and the period was extended from six months to one year by the Circular dated 01.01.2002. The respondents did not take into consideration of the latest circular. As a matter of fact, the said circular had specifically indicated that this will take effect from February 2000. Ofcourse, on the date of death of the employee, namely, 02.08.1999, the circular, which was issued on 12.12.1995, fixing the six months' period for filing the application from the date of death of the employee, was in force. But, on the date of application, namely, 10.04.2000 or on the date of receipt of application, namely, 19.04.2000, the Circular dated 12.12.1995, fixing the time for filing the application as six months was no longer in force. On the other hand, the latest circular issued on 01.01.2002, which has been given effect to from February 2000, fixing the time frame of one year, was in force. As such, the application made by the petitioner on 10.04.2000 was within time. Therefore, the order of rejection on the ground of delay beyond six months is not valid and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
6. In reply to the above submission, the counsel for the respondents would make the following submission:
The ex-employee died on 02.08.1999. At that time, the Circular dated 12.12.1995 giving the time limit of six months for submitting the application for compassionate appointment was in force. The one year time limit was fixed by the Circular dated 01.01.2002. Though the time for extension of one year was permitted through new Circular dated 01.01.2002, the Circular dated 12.12.1995 alone would be attracted in the petitioner's case. Therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay. Further, the employee died on 02.08.1999. By now six years' time has elapsed. By expiry of such a considerable period of time, the object and purpose of compassionate appointment is defeated. Therefore, the impugned order, being valid, is liable to be confirmed
7. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of petitioner's plea, would cite the following authorities:
(i) CWJC No. 132 of 2000 [Phagu Bouri v. C.C.L and Ors.]
(ii) [Roopan Manjhi v. C.C.L.]
(iii) LPA 402 of 2004 [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Maheshwar Munshi etc.]
(iv) LPA 379 of 2003 [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Rajendra Dusadh and Ors.]
(v) [Kumar Virendra Balajee v. State of Jharkhand]
(vi) 1990 (2) PUR 668 [Brajendra Prasad Poddar v. The State of Bihar and Ors.]
(vii) [M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar]
(viii) 2004 (3) JLJR 125 [Yadu Sao v. Central Coal Fields Limited]
8. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents would cite the authorities which are given below giving different view in support of respondents' plea:
(i) [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Arjun Bhuiyan]
(ii) L.P.A. No. 142 of 2004 [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohan Mahto]
(iii) L.P.A. No. 731 of 2004 [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Malaya]
(iv) L.P.A. No. 189 of 2006 [M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and others v. Goplal]
9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and we have also gone through the decisions/judgments cited by both. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions and analysed the question in issue.
10. There are two circulars (1) Circular dated 12.12.1995 fixing the time limit for six months; and (2) Circular dated 01.01.2002, fixing the time limit for one year. In this context, the main question that arises for consideration in this case is which is the circular that is attracted in this case? If the circular dated 12.12.1995, fixing six months' period is attracted in this case, then the application dated 10.04.2000 has to be held to have been filed beyond the period of six months from the date of death. On the other hand if the circular dated 01.01.2002, given effect from February 2000 is attracted in this case, then the application dated 10.04.2000 shall be construed to have been filed within one year from the date of death, i.e., within time.
11. Before dealing with this question, it would be better to refer to the various observations made by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, cited by both - the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents, which are relevant for the disposal of this case. They are as follows:
12. Let us now first see the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner. The relevant observations made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, as contained in the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner are given as follows:
(i) The Jharkhand High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 2000 [Phagu Bouri v. C.C.L and Ors.] would make the following observations:
The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected merely on the ground that the application for such appointment was filed after a gap of six months between the death of the employee and the date of application. The decision of the CCL authorities appeals to be irrational because it is but natural that if an employee dies in harness, his dependent, instead of mourning the sad demise of the bread earner, are not supposed to immediately rush to the employer asking for compassionate appointment, the reason given is unreasonable, illegal and without jurisdiction.
(ii) In [Roopna Manjhi v. C.C.L] this High Court would make the following observations:
Further in view of the fact that heirs of Hindu employee generally mourns for a period of one year from the date of death, the respondents should allow about 1 ½ years time to the heirs/wards of deceased employee to apply for compassionate appointment.
(iii) In L.P.A. No. 402 of 2004 [M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Maheshwar Manjhi etc.] in a batch of cases, the Division Bench of this Court would make the following observations:
While recognizing the fact that various circulars have been issued at different point of time, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the applications made by the writ petitioners should not be confined to the period as prescribed by the first Circular, in view of the fact that their cases for compassionate appointment were taken up for consideration long after when, in fact, the third Circular had come into operation. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the cases of the writ petition should be dealt with on the basis of the Circulars as prevailing on the date when the decision was taken in their respective cases. On that basis, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ applications and set aside the order which had been challenged in the writ petitions and all the matters were remitted back to the authority concerned for passing afresh orders, in accordance with law....
On behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners, it has however been urged that although initially the time period for making an application was six months, the authorities concerned realized that such Circular requires extension. Accordingly, on two successive occasions, the time period was extended by a period of six months each. It has been urged that having regard to the above, it could not have been the intention of the authority to strictly apply the provisions of the different Circulars, particularly, when it was the appellant authorities concerned, who had taken such a long time to dispose of the various applications made by the writ petitioners.
There is some amount of logic in the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners-respondents on account of the fact that their cases were dealt with individually at a point of time when the time period of making an application had been extended to one end half years. Applying such parameter, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to direct the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners afresh after discarding the technicalities, involving the time period for making such application.
(iv) In L.P.A. No. 379 of 2003 [Central Coalfields Limited etc. v. Rajendra Dusadh and Ors.], the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
What is contended on behalf of the appellant is that the circular fixing the period of one year is not retrospective in operation and the respondent must be governed by the circular dated 12.12.1995 which was in operation when his father died in harness. Normally that would have been the position, but in this case, this Court had struck down the prescription of six months for making the application as unreasonable. Therefore, it was as if the said period was never a governing factor for compassionate appointment. The appellant on the basis of that decision, introduced a period of one year for making an application for compassionate appointment. It must therefore be taken that at relevant times, before the subsequent modification made on the basis of an agreement with Union, the time for application for compassionate appointment was one year from the date of death....
(v) In [Kumar Virendra Balajee v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.] this Court held as follows:
It is not in dispute that vide Circular dated 27,4.1995 time frame has been made regarding the appointment on compassionate ground giving five years' time.
In view of the above circumastances, the appellant petitioner is entitled to seek compassionate appointment within five years from the date of the death of the deceased-employee, in the light of the fact that the stand taken by the appellant that application filed on 30.1.1997 itself has not been denied by the Respondents. The rejection order in the application seeking for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was filed beyond live years is liable to be set aside.... Respondents are directed to consider the application of the appellant on merits and pass appropriate orders. The respondents will also consider the relaxation of the age limit in view of the pendency of the matter before this Court and the delay caused by the Respondents in disposal of the application filed by the appellant.
(vi) In 1990 (2) PUR 668 [Brijendra Prasad Poddar v. State of Bihar] the Division Bench of Patna High Court would hold as follows:
In short, the matter with respect to his employment on compassionate ground remained pending before the authorities when on 25-5-1989 the State Government brought about the remedial amendment of the employment rule (...) which provides that an application for employment on compassionate ground could be made upto live years of the death....
The petitioner's representation against the decision of the authority did not attain finality, when the liberalized employment rule was enforced. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the liberalized employment rule on compassionate ground, his representation being pending on the date when the said rule was brought into effect In the case of B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmik the Supreme Court held that the liberalized amendments have to be liberally construed so as not to deny its efficacy. Further, the amended rule in question is a beneficial rule to improve the condition and remove the miseries of the family of a person who has died in harness....
(vii) In 2004 (3) JUR 125 [Yadu Sao v. Central Coal Fields Limited] this High Court held as follows:
...therefore, in my view the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the ground of delay in filing the application. The respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner on its own merit and ought not to have rejected on the technical ground of delay only.
13. Let us now see the relevant observations made in the judgments/decisions cited by learned respondents' counsel in support of the plea made by the respondent Company.
(i) In [Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Arjun Shuiyan] this Court observed as follows:
Admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred the application after one year and two months of the death of his father i.e. beyond the period of limitation. In such a situation it was not open for the Court to direct the appellants-respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment.
(ii) In L.P.A. No. 142 of 2004 [Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohan Mahto] dated 20.02.2006, the Division Bench of this Court would make the following observation:
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions (supra) and the Division of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Vengra (supra), the respondent/writ petitioner cannot seek appointment on compassionate ground after lapse of six months nor the Court can extent it.
(iii) In LP.A. No. 189 of 2006 [Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. v. Goplal] this Court made the following observations:
In the present case, there is no dispute of the fact that the father of the present respondent died on 01.08.1999 whereas he applied for his appointment of compassionate grounds on 07.02.2000 i.e. after expity of six days of the period of six months prescribed under the Circular.... Which stipulates that application for appointment on compassionate ground can be made within a period of six months from the date of death of an employee. As noticed above in the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was made after expiry of six days from the date prescribed. Therefore, this case is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions noticed above.
14. Keeping the above observations in mind, let us now come to the question in issue posed before this Court. The question is this. Which is the Circular that is attracted in this case? To decide the said question, it would be appropriate to look into both the circulars dated 12.12.1995 and dated 01.01.2002. We will now extract the first circular dated 12.12.1995:
Central Coalfields Limited Darbhanga House: Ranchi No.: PD/MP/9.4.2/93/7151 Dated: 12.12.95 To CGMs/GMs. Of all the Areas Circular It has been observed from the details of the statements prepared and submitted by the Areas for Placement Interview under para 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV, that cases pertaining to the period beyond 6 months are also entertained without any reasoning. Considering this situation and also in order to streamline the activities of the manpower and to have effective control over it, it has been decided that the cases falling beyond 6 months from the date of death of the concerned employees, the dependent of the deceased employees will not be entertained, unless express permission is given by Hqrs. after thorough scrutiny of the cases. More so action will be taken against those who fail to complete the work within stipulated time.
Therefore, all the Staff Officer (Pers.) should discuss this matter with the Personnel Executives of the Units/Establishments and advise them accordingly.
Sd/-
(Dr. S.S. Roy) Director (Personnel) C.C.: Staff Officer (Pers.) of all the areas.
15. This circular would indicate that the respondents have decided that in the cases falling beyond six months from the date of death of the concerned employee, the dependent of the deceased employee will not be entertained unless express permission is given by Headquarters after thorough scrutiny of the cases. Thus, six months has been clearly fixed by this circular and as such the application must have been filed within six months from the date of death of the employee and in some cases even after the expiry of six months, permission would be issued/granted by the headquarters after thorough scrutiny of the cases.
16. Let us now see the next circular dated 01.01.2002. Admittedly, the 12.12.1995 circular has been modified by the another circular dated 01.01.2002, which reads as follows:
CCL Central Coalfields Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India Limited) Darbhanga House, Ranchi 834 001 Phone 0651....
Gram....
Website....
No.: PD/MP/9.3.2./02/01 Dated: 1st January 2002 To The Chief General Manager/General Manager, Dhori/Kathara/B&K/BCW Kathara/Argada/Sayal/Charhi/ Kuju/Barkakana/CWS, Barkakana/Rajrappa/Rajhara/N.K./ Piparwar/Giridih.
CIRCULAR It has been observed from the case files received from areas for appointment of dependants of ex-empioyees under para 9.3.2. of NCWA V/VI that the cases pertaining to the period beyond six months are also entertained and sent without any reasoning. Therefore, vide circular No. PD/MP/9.4.2./95/7151 dated 12.12.95 all areas were advised that the cases falling beyond six months from the date of death of the concerned employee will not be entertained unless express permission is given by Hqtrs. After thorough scrutiny of the case.
Now in view of the persistent demands of unions relaxation was granted for one year from Feb. 2000 which was subsequently discussed and reviewed in the meeting held with unions at Corporate Level. It was decided that henceforth application submitted under Clause 9.3.2. within one year after demise of an employee will not be treated as belated case. Thus the application submitted by dependent concerned after expiry of one year from the date of death of ex-employee will not be considered for employment.
The above guidelines may be followed strictly.
Sd/-
(D.SAHAY) Director ( Personnel ) C.C. to:
The Staff Officer (Pers.), All areas
17. The reading of the above circular dated 01.01.2002 would clearly reveal that the earlier circular dated 12.12.1995 was reviewed in view of the persistent demands of the Unions for the extension of the six months' period and it was decided to extend the period from six months to one year and the applications filed within one year from the date of death of the employee will not be rejected as a belated case. The said circular has been given effect to from February 2.000. The perusal of this circular would make three aspects clear:
(i) Circular dated 12.12.1995 is cancelled.
(ii) Time was extended to one year instead of six months.
(iii) This circular dated 01.01.2002 is given retrospective effect from February 2000.
18. In this case, the application was filed on 10.04.2000. On that date the second circular dated 01.01.2002, given effect to from February 2000 providing the time limit of one year from the date of death of the employee was in force. It is to be made clear that although the said circular was issued subsequent to the date of filing of the application, i.e., 10.04.2000, the circular had been given effect to, as indicated earlier, not prospectively, but retrospectively, i.e., from February, 2000. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that on the date of filing the application, i.e., on 10.04.2000 or on the date of receipt of application, i.e., 19.04.2000, the timeframe fixed by the respondents, through the latest circular, was one year and not six months. Therefore, it must be construed that the application dated 10.04.2000, which was received on 19.04.2000 is well within one year from the date of the death of the employee.
19. This aspect could be viewed from yet another angle as well. The circular dated 01.01.2002 would clearly indicate that the respondents have decided that henceforth or here afterwards application for the compassionate appointment will be considered where the application is made within one year after demise of an employee and it will not be rejected or treated as a belated case. In this case, the consideration by the respondents with reference to delay was made only on 09.05.2006, i.e., after about six years latter. Therefore, even assuming that the circular dated 01.01.2002 should be given only prospective effect, the respondents should not have given a go bye to the circular dated 01.01.2002 while considering the application for compassionate appointment long after the issuance of the said circular. In other words even though the circular dated 01.01.2002 was in force on 09.05.2006, i.e., the date of consideration of the application, the respondents had not cared to respect their own circular, but rejected the application on the ground of delay, whereas there was no delay at all and on the basis of the Circular dated 12.12.1995 which was not in force then.
20. One other aspect could be noticed in this case. It is not in dispute that after death of the employee on 02.08.1999, the mother of the petitioner, seeking for compassionate appointment for her son, sent a letter dated 10.04.2000. It is also not in dispute that the said application was returned on 29.05.2000 by the respondents stating that the explanation for delay was not satisfactory and demanding some more relevant particulars for considering the compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the mother of the petitioner sent a detailed letter giving the explanation for delay and also providing all particulars sought for by the respondents. In the light of the said explanation and the relevant particulars given by the mother of the petitioner, the respondents had chosen not to press the ground of delay, and on the other hand asked the petitioner's mother to obtain succession certificate from the Court. This indicates that the respondents, who were conscious about the delay, impliedly condoned the delay and therefore, they wanted the petitioner's mother to get succession certificate in order to consider the question whether compassionate appointment could be given to her son or not. Then through two letters dated 29.08.2002 and 16.09.2002 the petitioner's mother explained her difficulties in approaching the Court and requested the respondents to consider the compassionate appointment of her son even without succession certificate. But, the respondents rejected her request. So, the only hurdle at that point of time was want of succession certificate and not the delay.
21. Therefore, the petitioner's mother approached the Court in pursuance of the direction of the respondents and filed necessary application by incurring expenditure. At last she obtained a succession certificate on 16.06.2004. The same was submitted by the petitioner's mother on 13.12.2004 before the respondents. On receipt of the said certificate, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Screening Committee. Accordingly, he appeared and ultimately he was declared successful on 21.01.2006.
22. The above things would clearly show that the respondents did not raise question of delay earlier. On the other hand, after having satisfied with reasons for the delay of few days, the respondents had chosen to direct the mother of the petitioner to go to the Court and obtain the succession certificate and on receipt of succession certificate, the respondents had chosen to direct the petitioner to appear with all documents before the Screening Committee and on his appearance, the Committee considered all the documents produced by the petitioner and interviewed him. Only thereafter, he was declared successful on 21.01.2006. This is not disputed. Having done all these things, we are at a loss to understand as to why the respondents chose to reject the application on the ground of delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment. This conduct of the respondents to keep the application pending for six years and to reject the claim for appointment on the ground that application was filed beyond the period of six months is quite unfortunate.
23. If the respondents desired or decided to reject the application on the ground that the application was filed with the delay, i.e., after expiry of six months as per Circular, they must have rejected even at the earliest point of time. Without doing that, the respondents compelled the mother of the petitioner to drive from the pillar to the post to obtain the succession certificate from the Court. The respondents, after receipt of succession certificate, obtained by the mother of the petitioner, had summoned the petitioner to appear before the Screening Committee on 21.01.2006. Why all this process? Similarly, if the delay is the main question, the Screening Committee need not have to enter into the merits of the claim, look into the documents, interview him and declare him successful, Then why all these ceremonies? Having made the petitioner to subject himself to all sorts of ordeal, the respondents, after six years, simply rejected the application, on the ground of delay. What delay? Delay is on whose part?
24. As indicated above, on the date of consideration of the petitioner's claim, the circular dated 12.12.1995 was not in force. Even assuming that 12.12.1995 circular was taken into consideration, the said circular, itself, would indicate that six months' period can be extended provided the permission is granted. The very fact that after getting the explanation of the delay, the respondents asked petitioner's mother to obtain the succession certificate from the Court would indicate that the delay was condoned and permission was granted to the petitioner's mother as per the circular dated 12.12.1995 to pursue her claim for her son.
25. In this case, as indicated above, the circular issued on 01.01.2002, giving the time for one year for filing the application, alone is attracted as it has been given effect from February 2000. Admittedly, application had been filed by the petitioner's mother, on behalf of the petitioner, in April 2000 itself.
26. All the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner would clearly lay down that even though at the time of filing the application seeking for compassionate appointment, the earlier circular, prescribing six months' period as limitation, was in force, the said circular was not in force at the time of consideration of the application before rejecting the same and on the other hand, the latter circular, prescribing the period of one year, which was in force at the time of consideration, alone has to be considered for deciding the period of limitation. Therefore, the citations, referred to above by the counsel for the petitioner, squarely apply to this case. On the other hand, the decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents, referred to above, would not be of any use for the respondents as the question in issue relating to the applicability of the circular was never raised in those cases. In other words, in those cases the circular dated 01.01.2002, which was issued on a later point of time, giving retrospective effect, was not at all considered.
27. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are not able to hold that the order impugned, rejecting the application for compassionate appointment, is valid in law or justified and in our view it has to be held that it is unjustified and unsustainable.
28. In the above circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the observations made by this Court, as mentioned above. If necessary, the respondents will also consider relaxing the age limit in view of pendency of the matter before this Court and the delay caused by the respondents in disposal of the application filed by the petitioner. The appropriate order shall be passed by the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
This writ petition is allowed.
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
29. I agree.