Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 12.05.2012 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. A further prayer for enforcement of the provisions as contained in Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement and to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner have also been made. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the husband of the petitioner died on 18.10.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 17.03.2012 for appointment on compassionate ground. By order dated 12.05.2012, claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, namely, Sanicharwa Bediya. In support of her claim, petitioner has filed copies of election card, policy certificate issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India as well as marriage card and a letter issued by Circle Officer, Ramgarh dated 11.11.2011. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein as under : “13. That the relevant provision of NCWA governing the cases of compassionate appointment inter-alia provides the employment to one dependent of the family members, mentioned therein, upon death of an employee while in service. 14. That the respondent CCL in order to ascertain the dependency and genuinity of the applicant for compassionate appointment relies upon the following service records of an employee and wherein, in any of the said records, the name of applicant should appear for consideration of his / her case. i) Service sheet/service sheet excerpts ii) Gratuity nomination form. iii) CMPF records iv) LTC/LLTC Records v) Pension Records under CMPS, 1998 15. That the respondent CCL in absence of name in the above records, relies to the following records for consideration of the case. i) Succession certificate ii) Marriage Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar. 16. That the name of the petitioner did not appear in any of the available service records of the deceased employee.” 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the documents on record husband of the petitioner was illiterate mazdoor and therefore, he inadvertently could not fill the statutory forms indicating the name of his wife, that is, the present petitioner. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the documents on record husband of the petitioner was illiterate mazdoor and therefore, he inadvertently could not fill the statutory forms indicating the name of his wife, that is, the present petitioner. He further submits that the provision for granting appointment on compassionate ground should be construed liberally as it has been formulated for the benefit of the family of the employee who died during the course of employment. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Others”, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “19. Mr. Bhasme further contended that family members of a large number of the employees have already availed of the Family Benefit Scheme and as such it would be taken to be otherwise more beneficial to the employee concerned. We are not called upon to assess the situation but the fact remains that having due regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whatever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner should have been decided by the authorities taking a pragmatic view and in view of the prevailing circumstances, in which the petitioner's husband was working. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that on verification of the records of the petitioner, it has been found that in none of the forms, husband of the petitioner has named the petitioner as beneficiary. The husband of the petitioner has availed the facilities of Leave Travel Concession, however, in those documents also the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned. The husband of the petitioner has availed the facilities of Leave Travel Concession, however, in those documents also the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned. In view of the above, claim of the petitioner has been resisted. 8. On perusal of the documents, it is found that the petitioner herself claimed that she has four children, out of which the elder one was born in the year, 1999. Documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of her claim cannot be said to be the documents which would conclusively establish that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Sanicharwa Bediya. Even after the birth of the children, the husband of petitioner has not named either the petitioner or his children as the dependents. 9. In view of the documents on record and the specific stand taken by the respondents in the Counter-affidavit, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of late Sanicharwa Bediya. 10. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of late Sanicharwa Bediya and thus, the dependent of the deceased employee, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.