JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — Petitioner seeks a direction to the opposite parties to provide employment to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme without insisting on the “No Objection Affidavit”. 2.The petitioner being the widow of late Hadibandhu Sahoo pleads that her husband, who was working as a Dumper Operator in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Samaleswari OCP IB Valley area, Brajarajnagar, died on 13.3.2008 in a road accident leaving behind the petitioner and her minor daughter. On the death of the husband of the petitioner, the opposite parties vide order with Reference No. MCL/IBV/SOCP/PER/MISC/07-08 dated 13.3.2008 of the office of the Personal Manager, Samaleswari OCP initiated a proceeding for rehabilitation of the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Scheme and intimated the petitioner to furnish a No Objection Affidavit from all major dependants of the deceased husband. The petitioner further pleads that after the death of her husband, her in-laws along with her brother-in-law tortured her both mentally and physically and have mercilessly driven her out of their home and have deprived of her right to life and livelihood for which the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.137/2008 demanding a share from the provident fund left by her husband. The father-in-law of the petitioner has received all the land acquisition compensation amount along with insurance benefit, death claim amount arising out of the petitioner’s husband and has not given a single pie to the petitioner. The petitioner has been deprived of her husband’s share in the ancestral property including compensation etc. Her father-in-law and other relatives are bent on harassing her and hence did not cooperate with her by declining to furnish the required ‘No Objection Affidavit’ for employment. The father-in-law of the petitioner is a pension holder of M.C.L. and her elder brother-in-law is also an employee under the M.C.L.. Hence, both of them are neither major dependants nor eligible for employment under the rehabilitation scheme. More over the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Talcher, clearly reveals that the petitioner, her daughter Jyotirmayee Sahoo and her mother-in-law Duti Sahoo as the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner late Hadibandhu Sahoo. Being physically mentally abused by her in-laws the petitioner was compelled to file a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher, against her father-in-law and others. Being physically mentally abused by her in-laws the petitioner was compelled to file a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher, against her father-in-law and others. Thus, on such factual facts, it has become impossible on the part of the petitioner to receive any kind of sympathetic treatment from her in-laws and therefore she is not in a position to obtain a No Objection Affidavit as demanded by the opposite parties. In view of the said facts the opposite parties need to consider her case for rehabilitation without insisting on the No Objection Affidavit. More over from the certificates filed, it is clear that there are no other major dependants of her husband except her mother-in-law and that her father-in-law is a retired M.C.L. employee. On such pleadings the petitioner prayed that the opposite parties be directed to provide employment to her under the rehabilitation scheme without insisting on the No Objection Affidavit. 3.The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, admitting that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Dumper Operator under the M.C.L. and died in a road accident on 13.3.2008 leaving behind the petitioner, her daughter and the mother-in-law of the petitioner as his legal heirs. It is also admitted that the petitioner submitted an application for employment under the rehabilitation scheme with certain documents. On receipt of the said application, the opposite parties vide Letter dt. 29.8.2008 asked the petitioner to submit a No Objection Affidavit from all the major dependants of the deceased, as the said affidavit and physical presence of the major dependants will be required at the time of scrutiny of the application. The opposite parties further plead that in case of employment to the dependants under Clause 9.3.0/9.4.0/9.5.0. of the N.C.W.A.-V certain guidelines have been framed and a check list has been circulated by the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. for verification of cases for employment under rehabilitation scheme. As per Clause-11 of the check list an affidavit in the form of No Objection from all major dependants of the family are required. This circular has been annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. As per Clause-11 of the check list an affidavit in the form of No Objection from all major dependants of the family are required. This circular has been annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. The opposite parties further plead that the application of the petitioner cannot be processed due to want of an affidavit in the form of No Objection which is meant to prevent any future claim of employment by other major dependants of the deceased family and it is difficult on the part of the opposite parties to dispense with non-filing of the No Objection in the form of an affidavit from all major dependants. 4.In course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically submitted that even the circular issued by the opposite parties does not require that No Objection Affidavit should be filed by the mother-in-law and other in-laws, who were not dependents upon the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, insisted that No Objection Affidavit should be filed by the petitioner for getting rehabilitation assistance. 5.The pivotal questions that arise in this case are that who are the major dependent of the deceased and whether it is necessary for the petitioner to file a No Objection Affidavit from those persons who are major but not dependent upon the deceased. At page-8 of Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit, the scheme of employment to dependants of an employee, who are disabled permanent or who died in service, have been provided. At Clause-9.3.3. the circular lays down the meaning of dependent for the purpose of rehabilitation scheme. It is appropriate to quote the same. It reads as follows : “Clause-9.3.3.- The dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be dependents of the deceased.” A plain reading of this clause indicates that for the purpose of rehabilitation, dependents means wife or husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. Only if in case no such direct dependent is available for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be dependents of the deceased. So the spouse of the deceased, their daughter, son and adopted son have a right to be considered first for such rehabilitation assistance. Only if no such dependents are available then the question of providing rehabilitation assistance to younger brother etc. shall arise. So in the present case, the petitioner and her daughter are the only dependants of the late employee. It is worthwhile to mention here that the mother of the deceased employee does not find place in the provision quoted above. Further more, the check list (page-4, Annexure-A series) provides at Clause-11 that affidavit in the form of No Objection from all the major dependents of the family has to be filed. In this case, this Clause-11 shall be controlled by Clause-9.3.3. For the purpose of determining the major dependents of the family a cross reference has to be made to Clause-9.3.3. and as noted earlier only the spouse and the children are the dependants for the purpose of rehabilitation assistance. Only if spouse and the children are not available then the question of providing rehabilitation assistance to other relative arise. 6.Thus from the above discussion, it is apparent and crystal clear that the circular calls for a No Objection from all major dependants which includes the spouse and the adult children of the deceased. In this case the petitioner is the only major dependent of the deceased so far as the scheme of rehabilitation assistance is concerned. 7.We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not required to file No Objection Affidavit from her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law and her case should be considered without any such No Objection Affidavit. It is needless to say that her daughter being a minor is not required to file “No Objection Affidavit”. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to process the rehabilitation assistance application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment without insisting upon a No Objection Affidavit as per the letter Reference No.MCL/IBV/SOCP/PER/08-09/999 dated 29.8.2008. With the aforesaid observations, the writ application is disposed of. No costs. The opposite parties are directed to process the rehabilitation assistance application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment without insisting upon a No Objection Affidavit as per the letter Reference No.MCL/IBV/SOCP/PER/08-09/999 dated 29.8.2008. With the aforesaid observations, the writ application is disposed of. No costs. The petitioner is directed to file requisites within seven days for communication of this judgment. PRADIP MOHANTY, J.I agree. Application disposed of.