The main legal point established is the obligation of the employer to timely communicate decisions regarding compassionate appointments and the need for employers to make dependants aware of their rights under relevant agreements.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - This writ petition was instituted on 17. 02. 2017 and it was listed for hearing on 20. 03. 2017, when at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondentM/s CCL it was adjourned for 09. 05. 2017. On 09. 05. 2017, in view of the assignment of the subject compassionate appointment the writ petition was directed to be listed before appropriate Bench. On the next date of hearing, that is, on 19. 06. 2017 a prayer for adjournment for filing counteraffidavit was made. Order dated 14. 11. 2017 reads as under :

"Seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. Petitioner no. 1 is wife of the employee namely, Bodhan Manjhi and petitioner no. 2 is her son. The employeeBodhan Manjhi was employed under the respondentCCL as Piece Rated Worker at Urimari Project. He died on 18. 05. 1998 in harness. The petitioners have pleaded that petitioner no. 1 submitted application dated 15. 10. 2001 for her appointment on compassionate ground. It is pleaded that when no decision was taken on the application for compassionate appointment, several representations were submitted before the respondents, still no decision was taken by the respondents in the matter. Constrained, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. In the counteraffidavit, the respondentCCL has disputed the representations submitted by the petitioners asserting that these were not received in its office. It is pleaded that claim for compassionate appointment was declined on 17. 05. 2002, a copy of which has been been produced vide AnnexureG. The petitioners have taken a stand that letter dated 17. 05. 2002 was not communicated to them. This stand of the petitioners has not been controverted by the respondents in their counteraffidavit. A bare perusal of the letter dated 17. 05. 2002 would also disclose that a copy of the said letter was not marked to any of the petitioners. Claim for compassionate appointment has been declined on the ground that application dated 15. 10. 2001 was filed after a delay of more than three years. The petitioner no. 1 was aged about 30 years when her husband died and it is stated that the petitioner no. 2 was 13 years of age.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that had the order of rejection vide AnnexureG been communicated to the petitioners in time, the petitioner no. 1, who was eligible for appointment, could have prosecuted the matter in the Court, however, on account of delay in communication of letter dated 17. 05. 2002, the petitioner no. 1 has crossed the age of 45 years which is the maximum age for a female dependant for appointment on compassionate ground. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is entitled for monetary compensation from 15. 11. 2001 and her son is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and the monetary compensation to petitioner no. 1 must be paid to her till her son, if found fit, is granted compassionate appointment.

5. For adverting to the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Lala, the learned counsel for the respondentCCL is seeking adjournment for filing an affidavit.

6. Post the matter on 28. 11. 2017. "

2. On the next date of hearing, that is, on 28. 11. 2017 a supplementary counteraffidavit on behalf of the respondentM/s C. C. L was taken on record, and in view of the stand taken therein the following order was passed by the Court: "A copy of supplementary counteraffidavit is tendered in the Court.

Taken on record.

Be tagged at its proper place.

When this Court recorded a finding that plea taken by the petitioners that rejection of claim of petitioner no. 1 was not communicated to her has not been challenged in the counteraffidavit nor a document disclosing communication of the rejection order dated 17. 05. 2002 has been brought on record, the respondents have produced a copy of letter dated 03. 06. 2002 by which the petitioner no. 1 was purp