Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be given after a long period of time.

D.N. Patel, J.

This Civil Review application has been preferred for review of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 478 of 2014 dated 14th May, 2015.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main ground for challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is that there was no delay on the part of this petitioner for raising demand of compassionate appointment. During the course of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this petitioner came to know that his application for getting compassionate appointment was rejected on 28th September, 2000. The father of this petitioner expired on 10th April, 1991 and, thereafter, mother of this petitioner expired in the year 1995. The petitioner was of 14 years of age in the year 1991. Thus, there was no delay on the part of this petitioner in approaching this Court.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of this petitioner for getting compassionate appointment has been rejected without assigning any reasons. These facts are not properly appreciated by this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, this Civil Review application has been preferred.

4. It appears that the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by this petitioner was dismissed by this Court considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter. Father of this petitioner expired on 10th April. 1991. The name of this petitioner was deleted from the roll of Kuju Colliery on 23rd/25th November, 1991 because the age of this petitioner was 10 years as on 1st April, 1987. Mother of this petitioner was in fact entitled to the compassionate appointment or she was entitled to monetary compensation. The application for compassionate appointment was never preferred by mother. She expired on 10th May. 1995 i.e. after approximately 4 years of the death of father of the petitioner. Thereafter, dispute was raised by this petitioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the reference was rejected by the appropriate Government in the year 2000 and, thereafter, writ petition was preferred in the year 2010. All these facts have been considered by this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal. No new facts have been stated before this Court. The whole case is argued as if this Civil Review application is an appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 478 of 2014. This Civil Review application is not an appeal in disguise.

5. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, as reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, at paragraph 3 as under:

"3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor’s order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review o