The appellant before us, Central Coalfields Limited, has questioned the legality of the decision of the learned First Court directing them to consider and take a fresh decision in respect of the plea of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment. The writ petitioner is married daughter of a deceased employee of the appellant who died in harness. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that her client is the only child of the deceased employee. Her plea for compassionate appointment was turned down by the appellant on the ground that she was married and hence was dependent on her husband. This factor, according to the appellant, makes her ineligible for getting the benefit of the provisions relating to compassionate appointment. The learned First Court held:

“6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and giving my anxious consideration to the documents on record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:

(I) There is no denying of the fact that the mother of the deceased was employee of the C.C.L and she died in harness and t