JUDGMENT :

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

2. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2500 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has refused to interfere with the order as contained under memo no. 3436 dated 21.03.2012 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:

The mother-in-law of the writ petitioner was a regular employee under respondents who had died in harness on 07.04.1994. The father-in-law of the writ petitioner had subsequently died on 13.12.2000. Since there was no male dependent in the family of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner, being second son-in-law, had applied for compassionate appointment vide application dated 19.11.1997, which was forwarded. Since no decision was taken, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2010 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner and pass a reasoned order. In pursuance of direction of this Court, an order was passed on 21.03.2012, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner, which has been assailed by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2500 of 2012.

The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after the period of limitation. The learned Single Judge has also taken the ground, while not interfering with the impugned decision, that the writ petitioner was not fully dependent upon his mother-in- law. As per the scheme, the son-in-law can only be held to be entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground if he is fully dependent upon deceased employee. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that there is no delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment and even if the application was time barred, the same was not decided immediately so that the writ petitioner would not have any expectation of job under the National Coal Wage Agreement and after being denied, he would have searched for another job.

The further issue has been raised that as to why the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was kept pending for 15 years and decision was taken only after a direction of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2010.

5. On the other hand, Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL, has submitted that there is no delay in considering the application of the writ petitioner since the same was rejected and communicated forthwith to the writ petitioner as would appear communicating order of rejection of his claim dated 06.11.1999 but even then the writ petitioner has not questioned the said order after its communication rather the writ petition was filed after a lapse of more than 12 years.

It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the circular which was prevalent during the relevant time about making application for appointment on compassionate ground by which the period for making such application was six months but admittedly, the application was filed after lapse of two and half years. Further, since the writ petition has only been filed after lapse of more than 12 years, the claim of the writ petitioner, at such