JUDGMENT :

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1719 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the letter dated 10.09.2002 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under National Coal Wage Agreement has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case which need to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The mother of the petitioner, namely, Late Ketki Bedia, who was an Ex-General Mazdoor working under the appellant CCL, has died on 08.04.1997 in harness. The writ petitioner made application within stipulated time before the Personnel Officer but as the application was not submitted in due format, the same was again demanded by the appellant CCL and in pursuance thereto, the application was filled up in due format but the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 10.09.2002.

The aforesaid order has been questioned by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1719 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge, after taking consideration the order passed by another Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3078 of 2013, has quashed the order of rejection of the claim of appointment on compassionate ground with a direction upon the appellant management to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant CCL, has submitted that the death has occurred on 08.04.1997 and the application was rejected on 10.09.2002 but the writ petitioner has approached to this Court in the year 2012 and as such, there is considerable delay on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching this Court i.e., the writ petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of about 10 years from the date of rejection and about 15 years from the date of death of the bread earner and due to lapse of considerable period of time, the purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground to be offered in favour of the dependant of the deceased employee for providing immediate succour to the bereaved family, has been frustrated and as such, the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while quashing the order of rejection.

He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not gone into the factual aspect involved in W.P.(S) No.3078 of 2013 since according to him, the factual aspect involved therein is quite different to that of the present one as because in W.P.(S) No. 3078 of 2013 the death has occurred in the year 2010 while the claim has been rejected on 03.01.2013 and as such, there is no delay on the part of the litigant in the said case in approaching the court of law but the fact herein is quite different and hence the applicability of the order passed by another Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3078 of 2013 should not have been applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted that it is incorrect to say that there is delay on the part of the writ petitioner, rather, according to him, although the death has occurred on 08.04.1997 and the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected on 10.09.2002 but the said order has been communicated only in the year 2008 and thereafter the writ petition has been filed in the year 2012 hence when the appellant CCL has committed laches in deciding the application of the writ petitioner which was decided by them after lapse of about 11 years, now they cannot be allowed to take the plea of delay and laches said to have been commit