Compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of course and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 2199 of 2021:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 31 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 31 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.

LPA No. 393 of 2019:

7. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4165 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 25.01.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

8. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder :

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the father had died in harness on 23.09.2000. The mother of the writ petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment and she had been offered appointment vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2002 but the mother could not qualify in the medical test and accordingly appointment letter stands recalled. Subsequently, she had died on 25.12.2003.

The writ petitioner made an application on consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground before the concerned authority vide order dated 25.01.2014 but the claim has been rejected on the ground that such fresh application has been filed after expiry of more than four years from the date of death of the employee and further there is no concept of transferring or substituting an application for compassionate employment of another applicant. Being aggrieved, writ petition has been filed seeking therein a direction for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2014, but the writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019 against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner ought to have been kept in live roster since the day when the father died, he was minor and as per the condition contained in Clause 9.5.0(iii) which provides that if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept in a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years, as such, having not done so, gross illegality has been committed by the respondent-CCL which is contrary to the condition stipulated in the National Coal Wage Agreement but the said aspect of the matter has neither been considered by the authority concerned nor been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

10. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has vehemently opposed the submission by defending the order impugned and submits that there is no question of applicability of the condition stipulated under National Coal Wage Agreement as contained under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) since at the time of death of the employee, i.e., father of the writ petitioner, the appointment was provided in favour of the mother vide appointment letter dated 08.08.2002 but she having found to be medically unfit, therefore, the offer of appointment had been recalled.

Further, the day when the offer of appointment provided to the mother of the writ petitioner was recalled, the elder brother of the writ petitioner was major, as such, as per the