RAGHUNATH GANJHU Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is called out, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is absent.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the present petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment mainly on the ground that the father of the Petitioner expired on 16th October, 1996. The father of the Petitioner was in the service of the Respondents. The claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was made in the month of September, 1997 and the same was brushed aside by the Respondents vide order dated 28th January, 2002 mainly on the ground that there was gross delay in preferring such application and the decision of the Respondents is challenged in the year 2011. Learned Counsel for the Respondents is relying upon following decisions:

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the Respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: