JUDGMENT : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. N. Samal, learned counsel and Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 1, 3 & 4 along with Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment on the death of his father vide the impugned communication issued on 10/11.07.2020 under Annexure-8 so issued by Opp. Party No. 4. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner’s father was appointed in the year 1991 as a Badali worker and subsequently was regularized as Mechanical Fitter. It is contended that while so continuing as a Mechanical Fitter at Lakhanpur Area of MCL, he died on 25.11.2013. On such death of the deceased employee, Petitioner being the son, made his claim to get the benefit of appointment in terms of the provisions contained under the National Coal Wage Agreement so executed on 19.01.1996. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner though being the son of the deceased employee is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of appointment, in terms of the provisions contained under clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement, but such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.10/11.07.2020 under Annexure-8 only on the ground that his claim is not covered under clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. 4.2. It is also contended that prior to issuance of the impugned communication, on consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, he was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4. After such appointment of the Petitioner, when he was asked to undergo the medical examination vide letter dtd.21.04.2015 under Annexure-5, Petitioner also found to be medically fit. But his joining letter submitted under Annexure-6 when was not accepted, Petitioner made a grievance challenging such action of the Opp. Parties in not allowing the Petitioner to join on the face of the letter of appointment issued under Annexure-4. 4.3. Learned Sr. But his joining letter submitted under Annexure-6 when was not accepted, Petitioner made a grievance challenging such action of the Opp. Parties in not allowing the Petitioner to join on the face of the letter of appointment issued under Annexure-4. 4.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit with issuance of the order of appointment under Annexure-4, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned communication under Annexure-8, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the MCL on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Learned Sr. Counsel vehemently contended that after being provided with the appointment vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4, when it was found that Petitioner’s father has got the benefit of appointment by committing fraud and he was never a land oustee, basing on which he was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.05.07.1991 under Annexure-A/1, claim of the Petitioner though was allowed with issuance of the order of appointment under Annexure-4, but his joining was never accepted. It is contended that Petitioner’s father was never a land oustee and he was never a nominee of any land oustee and accordingly appointed order issued in his favour on 05.007.1991 under Annexure-A/1, cannot be taken as a valid appointment in the eye of law. 5.1. Placing reliance on Para 10 of the order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner’s late father, it is contended that in the said order of appointment it was clearly indicated that if any appointment has been obtained by fraudulent means/fraudulent declaration, services of such appointee can be terminated without any notice. Clause 10 of the order of appointment reads as follows:- “10. If at any time, it is found that you have got the appointment by fraudulent means, fraudulent declaration and agreement and/or you are not the real owner of land/house or direct dependent of the land owner, whose land has been acquired by the Company, your services are liable to be terminated without any notice.” 5.2. If at any time, it is found that you have got the appointment by fraudulent means, fraudulent declaration and agreement and/or you are not the real owner of land/house or direct dependent of the land owner, whose land has been acquired by the Company, your services are liable to be terminated without any notice.” 5.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner’s late father got the benefit of appointment by committing fraud, Petitioner being the son of the deceased employee is not eligible to get the benefit so allowed in his favour with issuance of order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4. In support of his submission reliance was placed to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prohlad Guha etc. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865 and another decision in the case of Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 690 . 5.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 7 & 8 of the judgment in the case of Prohlad Guha has held as follows:- “ 7. The principle of compassionate appointment, as we have noticed above, has been put in place to ameliorate suffering that is cast upon members of a family upon the sudden death of the earning member. An equally well- recognized principle is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is therefore clear that a person, claiming an appointment on such ground, has to demonstrate his relationship to the deceased person and eligibility for appointment. The same cannot be done without placing all relevant documents before the competent authority. The Tribunal as also the authority has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent-employees had not submitted any document to establish their claim and submitted forged and bogus documents. 8. On the aspect of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, we find that the authority had issued show- cause notices to the respondent-employees, to which they responded. It was subsequent thereto, upon finding the responses to be unsatisfactory, they were removed from the service. On approaching the Tribunal and receiving favorable orders, their appeals against such dismissal were heard and acted upon by the authority, with the dismissal being confirmed. It was subsequent thereto, upon finding the responses to be unsatisfactory, they were removed from the service. On approaching the Tribunal and receiving favorable orders, their appeals against such dismissal were heard and acted upon by the authority, with the dismissal being confirmed. Before the High Court, it was averred that the respondent-employees were not given an opportunity to prove their innocence, nor were any documents, on the basis of which the impugned order of dismissal was passed, provided to them. All of this, it was submitted, flies against the protection envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.” 5.4. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 8 & 9 of the judgment in the case of Avinash D. Mandivikar has held as follows:- “ 8. Stand of Respondent 1 employee is to the effect that he has put in nearly three decades of service and has about three years to go before retirement, and in terms of the High Court’s order he has been denied promotion. Therefore, the order of the High Court is an equitable order. 9. A similar plea about long years of service was considered by this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [ (2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 350] to be inconsequential. In para 19 it was observed : (SCC pp. 116-17) “19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 6. To the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the MCL, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that after appointment of the Petitioner’s father vide order dtd.05.07.1991, no action was ever taken against him on the ground that such appointment was obtained by committing fraud. Since Petitioner’s father after being so appointed vide order dtd.05.07.1991, was not only regularized but also was allowed to continue till he died on 25.11.2013, the factum of fraud cannot be raised against a dead person. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision on the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Girijanandini Devi & Ors. vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary , reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 236. Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows to the following extract of the decision:- “The maxim “action personalis moritur cun persona” a personal action dies with the person, has a limited application.” 6.1. vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary , reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 236. Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows to the following extract of the decision:- “The maxim “action personalis moritur cun persona” a personal action dies with the person, has a limited application.” 6.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was duly appointed vide order dtd.13.04.2015 and he has successfully qualified the medical test, Opp. Party No. 3 be directed to accept his joining report so submitted under Annexure-6. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds Petitioner’s father while continuing as a regular employee under the Opp. Parties, he died on 25.11.2013. On such death of the deceased employee, Petitioner when raised his claim to get the benefit of appointment, the same was not only considered but also vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4 Petitioner was appointed as against the pot of Cat-I (Tr.), General Mazdoor. After being provided with such appointment vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was asked to go for medical examination vide letter dtd.21.04.2015 under Annexure-5. Thereafter, Petitioner when submitted his joining report under Annexure-6, the same was never accepted and in the alternate the impugned order was passed by holding that Petitioner’s claim is not coming under the provisions contained under clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. 7.1. This Court taking into account the materials available on record and the provisions contained under clause 9.3.0 of NCWA, is of the view that since during continuance of the deceased employee under the Opp. Parties, no action was ever taken against him till he died, on the ground that the deceased employee got the benefit of appointment by committing fraud, after such death of the deceased employee, factum of fraud if any committed by the deceased employee cannot stand legal scrutiny. 7.2. Since Petitioner was duly appointed vide order dtd.13.04.2015 and he was declared medically fit after being referred under Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which the impugned order has been passed under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.3. It is also the view of this Court that after death of the deceased employee, factum of fraud cannot be raised in view of the decision in the case of Girijanandini Devi so cited (supra) . Not only that decisions relied on by the Opp. 7.3. It is also the view of this Court that after death of the deceased employee, factum of fraud cannot be raised in view of the decision in the case of Girijanandini Devi so cited (supra) . Not only that decisions relied on by the Opp. Parties as per the considered view of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned communication dtd.10/11.07.2020 under Annexure-8, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to accept the joining report of the Petitioner so submitted under Annexure-6 and allow him to discharge his duty in terms of Annexure-4. However, Petitioner will not be entitled to get any arrear claim from the date of his joining as per Annexure-6 till his joining is formally accepted in terms of the present order. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to pass a fresh order by allowing the Petitioner to join within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.