D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance in this writ application, is on account of the rejection of his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment, on the basis of the service of his father, who had died in harness while serving under the respondents CCL. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that there was delay of one month seventeen days in filing the application for compassionate appointment. Such period of delay was computed on the basis of the claim that the application ought to have been filed within a period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Learned Counsel submits that the ground of rejection of the petitioner's application is totally misleading and misconceived and as a matter of fact, the respondent authorities had themselves extended the period for filing the application for compassionate appointment up -to one year i.e. February 2000 and the petitioner's father had died on 26.11.1998, whereas the date of the rejection of the petitioner's prayer is 23.1.2002. Thus, on the date when the impugned order was passed, the benefit of the extended period of limitation was available to the petitioner and yet, the same was not considered by the respondents. Learned Counsel refers to in this context to the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary v. CCL, 2007 (3) JCR 692.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent CCL, while referring to the statements contained in the counter -affidavit, submits that originally, from the date of the death of the employee, the period of limitation was stipulated as six months and it is in this context that the petitioner's prayer was considered and disposed of by the impugned order.;