ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The father of the petitioner was employed with the Bihar State Electricity Board as a casual worker. The power plant at Loyabad, Moonidih was handed over by the Bihar State Electricity Board to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for operating however, as some dispute with respect to tariff arose between the parties, the BCCL stopped operating the said power plant. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner and few others continued to work with BCCL. By order dated 08.9.1995 they were absorbed in the Company. The other remaining workmen raised an industrial dispute and an Award was passed directing BCCL to absorb them in service. The Award was challenged by BCCL before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3486 of 1992 (R). This court set aside the Award by order dated 14.08.2002 however, the workers' Union resorted to protests and agitation and therefore, the matter was referred for arbitration before the sole Arbitrator Hon'ble Justice V. N. Khare (Former Chief Justice of India). A settlement was arrived between the parties, in terms of which an Award was passed on 08.07.2009 wherein, it is indicated that all workmen who were ordered by the Tribunal to be absorbed, would be deemed to be regularised in service from the date of their joining the Western Jharia Area (W. J. Area). The father of the petitioner died on 01.06.2004 and the mother of the petitioner submitted an application on 15.07.2004 seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground however, by impugned order dated 28.04.2011/03.05.2011, the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, there is no provision for offering appointment on compassionate ground to the dependants of casual workers. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that the workmen referred to in the Award dated 08.07.2009 would be deemed to be regularised in service with effect from the date of their joining the Western Jharia Area (W. J. Area) provided they were getting wages in Category I however, since, the father of the petitioner died on 01.06.2004 itself, the father of the petitioner would remain a casual worker. And, since, there is no provision in N.C.W.A.III for providing employment to the dependants of the casual workers, the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the authority. Relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit are extracted below: 19. “That it is stated that in terms of the settlement dated 25.05.2009 the workmen, who are getting category I wages from the date of joining at W. J. Area and having giving employment were deemed to have been regularized as a permanent employee from the date of joining as W. J. Areas with all consequential benefit. 20. That it is stated that before the settlement dated 25.05.2009, father of the petitioner already expired in the status of causal worker as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit.” 21. That further it is stated that Annexure1 of the writ petition is nothing but taking over casual workers of Loyabad Power House of BSEB in BCCL as a casual workers. 22. That it is stated that maximum names of persons appeared in Annexure1 will also find place in the regularization order in terms of the award dated 25.05.2009 passed by Hon'ble Former Chief Justice of India Sri V. N. Khare. 23. That it is stated that conjoint reading of Annexure 1 to the writ petition and Annexure B to the counter affidavit, it would be evident that list of Annexure1 was a list of casual workers, who remain as causal workers, otherwise, no occasion would have been arisen to pass an order vide Annexure A & B and no occasion would have arose for any settlement pursuant to award passed by Hon'ble Former Chief Justice of India.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on order dated 08.09.1995 (Annexure1) and the Certified Standing Order of BCCL contends that, the father of the petitioner was absorbed in the Company BCCL by order dated 08.09.1995 and therefore, the plea taken by the respondent authority in the impugned order, is factually incorrect. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on order dated 08.09.1995 (Annexure1) and the Certified Standing Order of BCCL contends that, the father of the petitioner was absorbed in the Company BCCL by order dated 08.09.1995 and therefore, the plea taken by the respondent authority in the impugned order, is factually incorrect. The learned counsel has further contended that the Certified Standing Order of the Company BCCL classifies workmen under six categories, one of which refers to 'casual worker' and therefore, on that count also, the ground taken in the impugned order dated 28.04.2011 rejecting the representation of the mother of the petitioner, seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground, is erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. As against the above, Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL, has submitted that the provision under the N.C.W.A. has been clarified by office order dated 02.07.1985 whereunder, it has been communicated that the dependants of casual/temporary/badli workers who died or became permanent disabled cannot claim the benefit of Clause 9.4.2 of NCWAIII. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL has submitted that, the fact that most of the employees mentioned in order dated 08.09.1995 are named in Award dated 08.07.2009 except, the father of the petitioner as he had died by that time, it would indicate that by order dated 08.09.1995, the father of the petitioner was not absorbed in the Company BCCL. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would next contend that Annexure II A appended to N.C.W.A. would indicate the wages paid to different class of workers and daily rated workers find place in the category of workers therein and thus, it cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that the casual workers would not be included in the category of workman. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provision under N.C.W.A. and the provision of the Certified Standing Order of BCCL, which are extracted below: 9. 3.0 Provision of employment to dependants. 9. 3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows: 9. 3.0 Provision of employment to dependants. 9. 3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows: 9. 3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9. 3.3The dependant 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 soninlaw residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the of the deceased may be considered to be the dependants of the deceased. 9. 3.4The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. 9. 4.0 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place. (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. Clause 7 of the Certified Standing Order of BCCL classifies workmen in six categories, which is extracted below: 7.0 Classification of Workmen: 7.1 For the purpose of these Standing Orders, workmen/employees shall be classified as follows: (a) Permanent (b) Probationer (c) Temporary (d) Badli or substitute (e) Casual (f) Apprentices 8. A perusal of the above provisions under the N.C.W.A. and the Certified Standing Order of the BCCL would indicate that, employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker who was disabled permanently or who has died while in service. The expression 'worker' is not qualified in Clause 9. 3. 1 or anywhere in the N.C.W. Agreement. A perusal of the above provisions under the N.C.W.A. and the Certified Standing Order of the BCCL would indicate that, employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker who was disabled permanently or who has died while in service. The expression 'worker' is not qualified in Clause 9. 3. 1 or anywhere in the N.C.W. Agreement. The Certified Standing Order of the BCCL indicates that the 'casual worker' also would come under the category of workmen. From the aforesaid provisions it is thus clear that, 'casual worker' would also be covered under Clause 9. 3. 0 of N.C.W.A. In view of the express provision under Clause 9. 3. 1 and Clause 7.1 of the Certified Standing Order of BCCL, I have no reason to take a view different from the literal meaning and the intention indicated under the provisions noticed hereinabove. 9. Referring to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL that, by office order dated 02.07.1985, it has been clarified that the dependants of causal/temporary/badli workers cannot claim the benefit of Clause 9. 4. 2 of N.C.W.A. III, I am of the view that the provision under N.C.W.A. which is an agreement between the Labour Union, Management and officials of the Ministry of Labour Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), cannot be modified by the Management unilaterally. I find that the Certified Standing Order of BCCL has statutory force and therefore, by a mere executive order, the provision contained in Certified Standing Order cannot be modified or amended unless, it is in the nature of clarification. Letter dated 02.07.1985 admittedly is not a clarificatory office order, rather the effect of office order dated 02.07.1985 would be to take away the benefit conferred upon the dependants of workman as provided under Clause 9. 3. 1 of N.C.W.A. and it would certainly modify Clause 7.1 of the Certified Standing Order. 10. Letter dated 02.07.1985 admittedly is not a clarificatory office order, rather the effect of office order dated 02.07.1985 would be to take away the benefit conferred upon the dependants of workman as provided under Clause 9. 3. 1 of N.C.W.A. and it would certainly modify Clause 7.1 of the Certified Standing Order. 10. Now, adverting to the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 2445 , referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL, I find that in the said case, there is no reference of a Standing Order/Rule/Guidelines which provided definition of 'workman' nor a provision for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependants of a workman was in issue and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL on the said judgment is misplaced and it does not lend any support to the case of the respondents. 11. In the present proceeding, neither a copy of the Award which was challenged before this Court nor a copy of the Award dated 08.07.2009 have been brought on record. The order dated 08.09.1995 clearly indicates that by order dated 22.06.1995 passed by the competent authority, a Selection Committee was constituted and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee which was approved on 12.08.1995, 52 casual workers including the father of the petitioner were absorbed in the Company BCCL and therefore, I am of the view that the ground taken by the respondent authority for rejecting the claim raised by the mother of the petitioner that, the petitioner cannot be offered appointment on compassionate ground as his father was working as casual worker, is contrary to the record produced in the present proceeding. No other document which would indicate that order dated 08.09.1995 was recalled or modified has been produced by the respondents in the present proceeding. The respondents have also not denied the genuineness of order dated 08.09.1995 and therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the contents of letter dated 08.09.1995. 12. I find that the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in Form B register at Sl. No. 6199 and his father was allotted Personnel No. by M/s BCCL. His father became a member of CMPF and he was allotted CMPF A/c No. DHN/11/628. His father nominated the mother of the petitioner in Form “F” as nominee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. No. 6199 and his father was allotted Personnel No. by M/s BCCL. His father became a member of CMPF and he was allotted CMPF A/c No. DHN/11/628. His father nominated the mother of the petitioner in Form “F” as nominee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The mother of the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 62,870/ on account of gratuity and she was paid Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 2,23,180/. She has been receiving Family Pension also. The payslip of the father of the petitioner indicates that he was working as “General Mazdoor” and deduction on account of CMPF, Gratuity, Pension and Insurance were made from his salary. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as under: 28. “That with regard to the statement made in para8 of the writ petition, under reply, it is stated and submitted that provident fund is deducted from the salary of each and every employee either permanent or casual. It is stated that part of the provident fund which is contributory in nature is converted into family pension scheme and the said amount i.e part is being paid as pension to the widow of the deceased and mere receiving of Pension does not prove that the person is permanent employee.” 13. Chapter IX of the NCWA deals with “Social Security”. Clause 9.1.0 deals with 'life cover scheme' and Clause 9.2.0 deals with Workmen's Compensation benefits. Similarly, Clause 9.6.0 provides for “Pension” and under Chapter IX itself under Clause 9.3.0 there is a provision for employment to dependants. I am of the view that once Gratuity, Provident Fund and Pension are provided to the mother of the petitioner, the benefit under Clause 9.3.0 which is also part of Chapter IX cannot be denied to the petitioner. I further find that the father of the petitioner died on 01.06.2004 and though, an application dated 15.07.2004 was submitted by the mother of the petitioner seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground, it has been rejected by the respondent authority by order dated 28.04.2011. The application seeking appointment on compassionate ground must be decided at the earliest and the delay on the part of the respondent authority would be in violation of the very object of offering appointment on compassionate ground. 14. In “Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. The application seeking appointment on compassionate ground must be decided at the earliest and the delay on the part of the respondent authority would be in violation of the very object of offering appointment on compassionate ground. 14. In “Sushma Gosain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 9. “......... it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 15. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.”, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 689. I further find that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has sufficient financial resources or that his family has been sufficiently compensated. Payment of Family Pension or other benefits under the NCWA also cannot be a ground to deny appointment on compassionate ground. 16. In “Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC of India & Ors.” reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 6. “In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is found in the report submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon. The terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into account.” 17. In the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically taken a plea that his father was the only breadearner and the family was fully dependent on his earnings. After the death of his father, the family is facing financial crisis, as the family has no other source of livelihood. The statement made by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondents merely be stating that it is not an admitted fact. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in granting compassionate appointment, guiding factor should be the financial condition of the family. 18. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & ors.” reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the only ground which can justify the compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependant nor the post he held is relevant. 19. 18. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & ors.” reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the only ground which can justify the compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Neither the qualifications of his dependant nor the post he held is relevant. 19. In “Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. T. Latheesh” reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “it is settled law that the principles regarding compassionate appointment that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situation and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.” 20. In “State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur” reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 23. “Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penurious, such appointments cannot be made..........” 21. In “Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr.” reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 10. “........... Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” 22. It is also true that the plight of the poor has not been adequately addressed by the Government and its instrumentalities. In “Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.”, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the words of President Roosevelt, Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru and Tolstoy observed that the constitutional philosophy of declaring the Republic a socialistic one, has not yet been achieved. The benefits have not yet reached the common man. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed itself in these words: 14. The benefits have not yet reached the common man. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed itself in these words: 14. We would like to point out that the philosophy of this Court as evolved in the cases we have referred to above is not that of the court but is ingrained in the Constitution as one of the basic aspects and if there was any doubt on this there is no room for that after the Preamble has been amended and the Forty second Amendment has declared the Republic to be a socialistic one. The judgments, therefore, do nothing more than highlight one aspect of the constitutional philosophy and make an attempt to give the philosophy a reality of flesh and blood.” 15. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of this Republic while dreaming of elevating the lot of the common man of this country once stated: “Our final aim can only be a classless society with equal economic justice and opportunity to all, a society organised on a planned basis for the raising of mankind to higher material and cultural levels. Everything that comes in the way will have to be removed gently, if possible; forcibly if necessary, and there seems to be little doubt that coercion will often be necessary.” These were his prophetic words about three decades back. More than a quarter of century has run out since he left us but there has yet been no percolation in adequate dose of the benefits the constitutional philosophy stands for to the lower strata of society. Tolstoy wrote: “The abolition of slavery has gone on for a long time. Rome abolished slavery. America abolished it and we did but only the words were abolished, not the thing.” Perhaps what Tolstoy wrote about abolition of slavery in a large sense applies to what we have done to the constitutional ethos. It has still remained on paper and is contained in the book. The benefits have not yet reached the common man. What Swami Vivekananda wrote in a different context may perhaps help a quicker implementation of the goal to bring about the overdue changes for transforming India in a positive way and in fulfilling the dreams of the Constitution fathers. These were the words of the Swami: “It is imperative that all this various yogas should be carried out in practice. What Swami Vivekananda wrote in a different context may perhaps help a quicker implementation of the goal to bring about the overdue changes for transforming India in a positive way and in fulfilling the dreams of the Constitution fathers. These were the words of the Swami: “It is imperative that all this various yogas should be carried out in practice. Mere theories about them will not do any good. First we have to hear about them; then we have to think about them. We have to reason the thoughts out, impress them on our minds and meditate on them; realise them, until at last they become our whole life. No longer will religion remain a bundle of ideas or theories or an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self. By means of intellectual assent, we may today subscribe to many foolish things, and change our minds altogether tomorrow. But true religion never changes. Religion is realisation; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging. It is the whole soul’s becoming changed into what it believes. That is religion.” 16. The relevant constitutional philosophy should be the substitute for religion and it must be allowed to become a part of every man in this country; then only would the Constitution reach everyone and he or she would be nearer the goals set by it. That perhaps can happen in every field.” 23. In “Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.”, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing that the goal of constitutional philosophy of equality and socialistic pattern in society has not been achieved, succinctly illustrated the situation thus: “A person dies while taking the wife to a hospital and the cry of the lady for bare subsistence would go unheeded on a certain technicality. The bread earner is no longer available and prayer for compassionate appointment would be denied as “it is likely to open a Pandora's box.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 8. The bread earner is no longer available and prayer for compassionate appointment would be denied as “it is likely to open a Pandora's box.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 8. The employer being Steel Authority of India, admittedly an authority within the meaning of Article 12, has thus an obligation to act in terms of the avowed objective of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution but has the authority in the facts of the matters under consideration acted like a model and an ideal employer — it is in this factual backdrop, the issue needs an answer as to whether we have been able to obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not. Have the lofty ideals which the founding fathers placed before us any effect in our daily life — the answer cannot however but be in the negative — what happens to the constitutional philosophy as is available in the Constitution itself which we ourselves have so fondly conferred on to ourselves. The socialistic pattern of society as envisaged in the Constitution has to be attributed its full meaning..........” 24. I further find that the respondents have granted appointment to the dependant of one Rajdeo Yadav, whose name also finds place in order dated 08.09.1995 (Annexure1). In paragraph no. 37 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a plea that appointment of Manorma Devi on compassionate ground was an error. I am of the opinion that the plea taken by the respondents, is patently false, in view of the order dated 08.09.1995 and the Award dated 08.07.2009. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.04.2011/03.05.2011 is hereby quashed. The respondent authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. It is made clear that the petitioner would be treated as eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, the date on which the application by the mother of the petitioner, seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground, was made.