ORDERAniruddha Bose, C.J. - (1.) I.A. No. 6543 of 2017 Interlocutory Application No. 6543 of 2017 has been filed for condonation of delay of 250 days in filing the instant appeal. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 250 days in filing the appeal. 1. A. No. 6543 of 2017 stands disposed of.L.P.A. No.428 of 2017 The dispute involved in the present appeal relates to claim for compassionate appointment by the son-in-law of a deceased employee of the appellant-Central Coalfield Limited. This is the second round of litigation on this subject. Earlier, the writ petitioner had approached this Court in W. P. (S) No. 5885 of 2008. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned First Court. The writ petitioner went in appeal against the decision of the learned First Court before an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Considering various provisions of the N.C.W.A. and other materials, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 28th April, 2014 (in L. P. A. No. 134 of 2014) partly allowed the appeal, holding: 8. "It appears from the above provisions that in case where any married daughter, son and legally adopted son of the deceased-employee is not available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant, as required by the respondents-authorities submitted the dependency certificate dated 18.07.2006 (Annexure-8 to the memo of appeal) issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh and Indemnity Bond etc. in support of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. However, from the order dated 16/17.06.2008, the order impugned in the writ petition, it appears that the documents submitted by the appellants were not considered by the respondents-authorities and by a cryptic order without disclosing any reason, the claim of the appellant has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh particularly, in the light of the dependency certificate and other relevant documents produced by the appellant. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order dated 26.02.2014 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh, in the light of the above direction, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order."
(2.) Subsequently on 09th September, 2014 an order was passed by the appellant captioned "reasoned order" and the main ground for rejecting the respondent's claim appears to be that the dependency certificate had been obtained after the death of the ex-employee on 11th August, 2005. In course of hearing before us, another ground on which the rejection order was founded was referred to. This ground was that the deceased employee was survived by his direct dependent-his widow. This decision was challenged by the respondent-writ petitioner by filing a writ petition, W.P.(S) No.3374 of 2015. The learned First Court has allowed the writ petition in the following terms : "The Hon'ble Division Bench considering the aforesaid provisions was of the view that in a case where any married daughter, son and legally adopted son of the deceased employee is not available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased, can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant, as required by the respondent authorities submitted the dependency certificate dated 18.07.2006 (Annexure-8 to the memo of Appeal) issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh and Indemnity Bond etc. in support of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. However, from the order dated 16/17.06.2008, the order impugned in the writ petition, it appears that the documents submitted by the appellants were not considered by the respondent authorities and by a cryptic order without disclosing any reason, the claim of the appellant has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh particularly, in the light of the dependency certificate and other relevant documents produced by the appellants. Going through the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent authorities have not considered the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court passed in L.P.A. No. 134 of 2014. As accumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and in view of the guidelines and circulars, reasons and judicial pronouncement and in view of the specific directions and observations of this Court in L.P.A. No. 134 of 2014, the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such it is hereby quashed and direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of four weeks and further after such consideration, issue appointment letter within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."
(3.) Now before us the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned First Court primarily on two grounds. Both these grounds formed the basis of the rejection order. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We have reproduced the relevant paragraphs of order of the learned First Court. The learned First Court in substance reiterated the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The authorities are to now take a decision afresh in the light of the dependency certificate and other relevant documents produced by the appellant. There is no finding on merit on the respondent-writ petitioner being ineligible on any other ground. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The order of the learned First Court shall be complied with within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.;