Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts of the present case are peculiar in some respect and therefore require interpretive foray into the provisions, under which compassionate appointment is granted to a dependant of an employee dying in harness.

3. In the instant case, the petitioner is the widow of deceased employee, namely, Rameshwar Das, who died on account of an accident on 13th December, 2009 while he was posted as Sweeper under C.C.L. Hospital, Giridih. The incidence of death of the employee led to the institution of an F.I.R. by his brother, in which the petitioner-widow and one Dhaneshwar Das were implicated as accused persons alleging that they had conspired to commit the murder of Rameshwar Das. The petitioner was taken into custody on 14th December, 2009 itself and suffered incarceration till she has been acquitted vide judgment dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Sessions Trial Case no. 286 of 2010 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, Annexure3. The learned trial court in concluding part of the judgment, has held that as a matter of fact there is no shred of evidence on record to establish the charge levelled against the accused persons, namely, Dhaneshwar Das and Kiran Devi. As a matter of fact not only did the other prosecution witnesses turned hostile but informant himself also stated that he did not have knowledge of the cause of his death and turned hostile. After having been released from jail custody pursuant to acquittal, the petitioner made a representation on 11th October, 2011, Annexure4 before Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. for granting permission to apply for employment under Clause 9.3.0. She explained the circumstances, in which she was arrested with an allegation of causing death of her husband and thereafter has been acquitted by trial court and released from custody on 23rd August, 2011. She also stated that due to non-availability of any adult member in her family, information regarding death of her husband could not be given to the management earlier. She therefore sought appointment under Clause 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A. Her request for grant of permission to apply for appointment on compassionate ground, has been rejected by communication dated 17/18th November, 2013 by Manager (personnel) Giridih, Annexure5 on the ground that such an application was made after the stipulated period of 1 year 6 months from the date of death of her husband under the circular governing compassionate appointment which does not provide for any relaxation. Therefore, the petitioner has assailed the same in the present writ application and also sought a direction to allow her to fill up forms for compassionate appointment for consideration of the competent authority.

4. The respondents have appeared and in their counter affidavit have justified the reasons indicated in the impugned order on the same ground that the circular in vogue for making a claim of compassionate appointment permits upper time limit of 1 year and 6 months only which had elapsed before applicant-petitioner made her application on 11th October, 2011 reckoning it from the date of death of her husband on 13th December, 2009. It is also indicated that a decision taken by Joint Consultative Committee on 24th October, 2011 which allows reconsideration of cases for compassionate appointment which were rejected on the ground of delay beyond 6 months were inapplicable to present case as it is permissible only if the application was made up to 1 and half years from the date of death of employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, no interference can be made in the impugned order as it does not suffer from any errors or infirmity.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the relevant material on record. In the factual matrix of the instant case, the peculiar issue which requires to be addressed is as to whether in a case where the dependent of the deceased employee had all along