ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel, Mr. Deen Bandhu, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh appears on behalf of the petitioner and respondent-CCL is represented by Mr. D.K. Chakraborty. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by respondent no.2 whereas it has been held that the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is not maintainable as per the provisions of NCWA. The facts of this case in narrow compass are as follows: 4. The father-in-law of the appellant died in harness on 11.08.2005 and thereafter the wife of the appellant submitted an application on 02.11.2005 seeking employment on compassionate ground. However, vide order dated 09.03.2006 the application claiming the appointment on compassionate ground of Smt. Parvati Devi, the wife of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground for married daughter. The wife of the deceased employee-late Jit Ram Manjhi thereafter on 26.04.2006 requested the authorities to consider the appointment of her son-in-law for appointment on compassionate ground. Earlier the petitioner had submitted the application in prescribed format on 08.08.2006. The respondent authorities had asked the petitioner to submit the documents in support of his claim that was dependency on the earning of father-in-law and accordingly the petitioner submitted the dependency certificate issued vide letter dated 18.07.2006 by Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh. Again the respondent authorities vide letter dated 11.08.2006 asked time to submit indemnity bond and statement of all the family members of the deceased which were furnished by the petitioner to the respondent authorities vide letter dated 19.08.2006. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 16/17.06.2008 stating that his case for appointment has not been considered by the competent authority under Para 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A.VII. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court by filing writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No.5885 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2014. Against the dismissal, the petitioner moved this Court preferring L.P.A. No.134 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 28.04.2014 allowed the Letters Patent Appeal with the following observations: “In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order dated 26.02.2014 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. Against the dismissal, the petitioner moved this Court preferring L.P.A. No.134 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 28.04.2014 allowed the Letters Patent Appeal with the following observations: “In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order dated 26.02.2014 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh, in the light of the above direction, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 6. In view of the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014 respondent authorities passed the reasoned order vide order dated 09.09.2014 holding therein: “Claim for compassionate employment of Shri Bipin Murmu is not maintainable as per the provisions of NCWA.” 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order annexed in this writ petition as Annexure-13 dated 09.09.2014 petitioner has preferred instant writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 09.09.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and the authorities have passed the impugned order in utter violation of the directions of this Court in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that everything was considered by this Court in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014 and then a direction was given for consideration of his case which has not been done by the respondent authorities. The petitioner's counsel further submitted that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWAVI specifically provides that if no direct dependent is available for employment, a son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be dependent of the deceased and the present case of the petitioner is wholly covered under the aforesaid Clause of NCWA which has not been considered by respondent no.2 while passing impugned order dated 09.09.2014. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CCL, Mr. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CCL, Mr. D.K. Chakraborty draws the attention of the Court towards the counter affidavit and submits that in Paragraph 9 it is clearly stated that application of Smt. Parvati Devi was not considered on the ground that married daughter is not entitled for compassionate employment as per the provisions of NCWA and also in view of the fact that wife of the deceased employee is alive and as such she should have applied for a monitory compensations in lieu of compassionate employment as per the provisions of NCWA. 10. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the respondent-authorities have not passed impugned order in proper perspective and has not considered observations and directions of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014 vide order dated 28.04.2014. Clause 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A.VII reads as under: 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 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 dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependents of the deceased. 11. The Hon'ble Division Bench considering the aforesaid provisions was of the view that in a case where any married daughter, son and legally adopted son of the deceased employee is not available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased, can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant, as required by the respondent authorities submitted the dependency certificate dated 18.07.2006 (Annexure-8 to the memo of Appeal) issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh and Indemnity Bond etc. in support of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. However, from the order dated 16/17.06.2008, the order impugned in the writ petition, it appears that the documents submitted by the appellants were not considered by the respondent authorities and by a cryptic order without disclosing any reason, the claim of the appellant has been rejected. in support of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. However, from the order dated 16/17.06.2008, the order impugned in the writ petition, it appears that the documents submitted by the appellants were not considered by the respondent authorities and by a cryptic order without disclosing any reason, the claim of the appellant has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant afresh particularly, in the light of the dependency certificate and other relevant documents produced by the appellants. 12. Going through the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent authorities have not considered the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court passed in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014. As accumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and in view of the guidelines and circulars, reasons and judicial pronouncement and in view of the specific directions and observations of this Court in L.P.A. No.134 of 2014, the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such it is hereby quashed and direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of four weeks and further after such consideration, issue appointment letter within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.