P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. This writ petition is before us as referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court who felt that some of the decisions rendered by other learned single Judges on the question of compassionate appointments require to be reconsidered in the light of some of the binding decisions of the Supreme Court. In fact, an elaborate order of reference was passed by the same learned Judge in WP (S) No. 6023 of 2002, but we did not answer the question therein because, that case could be disposed of on facts and there was no need to resolve the controversy. But the fact remains that the learned single Judge felt while making the reference to the Division Bench that the decision rendered or the direction issued by two other learned Judges of this Court could not be followed in the light of the legal position emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court. We have heard counsel in detail at the hearing.

2. The father of the writ petitioner died on 27.7.1997 while he was employed as a Security Guard in Central Coalfields Limited. Compassionate appointment or appointment of dependents of those who died in hathess was at that time, governed by Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Annexure-C itself was based on a settlement Between the Management and the Union in regard to the sustenance to be provided to the families of employees who died in harness. The settlement dated 12.12.1995 provided that the dependant had to apply for appointment within six months of the date of death of the employee. In the present case, the son of the employee, the writ petitioner, made an application only on 19.8.1998, more than one year after the date of death. In view of the finding rendered by this Court in the writ petition that the period of six months was too short, Annexure-D Circular was issued by the Central Coalfields Limited on 1.1.2002 extending the period of one year from the date of death and taking note of the persistent demand of the Union. The said circular or decision was made applicable from February, 2000. It may be noted that the father of the petitioner died on 27.7.1997 and the application was made by the petitioner only on 19.8.1998 even beyond the period of one year as indicated in Annexure-D Circular.

3. The petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition complaining that the Central Coalfields Limited was not disposing of his application for compassionate appointment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Coalfields Limited took a decision and by communication dated 8/11th October, 2001 informed the petitioner that since he had not applied within the time prescribed as per the prevailing norms, his case could not be considered under paragraph 9:3:2 of the concerned settlement or Regulation for appointment. The petitioner thereupon filed a rejoinder seeking to challenge this order on the ground that the same was illegal. It is thus the correctness of the stand adopted by the Central Coalfields Limited that falls for decision in this case.

4. It is now settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court that a compassionate appointment is not consistent with the normal rules of recruitment in any Government service or a public sector undertaking and such appointments have to be regulated by appropriate Rules or Schemes in that behalf. It has also been pointed out that the object of compassionate appointment is to bring immediate succour to the deprived family of the deceased employee and lapse of time could justify the rejection of a claim for employment. On that footing, the very object of making a provision for such an extraordinary appointment would be defeated by lapse of time. Here, on the basis of a Wage settlement, a provision has been made for compassionate appointment and circulars have been issued fixing the time within which the dependent of a deceased employee had to apply for such appointment. Thus, a Scheme had been framed by the Central Coalfields Limited