ORDER : This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by Senior Manager (Pers.) Topa Colliery, C.C.L. (Annexure-12) whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. It appears that petitioner's husband, namely, Bhikhu Karmali died in harness on 27.10.2003. Thereafter petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 24.01.2004. It then appears that at that time, petitioner's two sons, namely, Sikandar Karmali and Sachin Karmali were aged about 23 years and 18 years respectively. Therefore, the management of the CCL advised the petitioner to agree for providing employment to her elder son, namely, Sikandar Karmali. However, at that time, petitioner did not agree with the aforesaid advised of the CCL and insisted that she may be employed on compassionate basis. It appears that CCL denied her request and in stead of employing her, gave her monetary benefit provided under clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VI. It further appears that the petitioner refused to accept the monetary benefit and filed a representation for giving employment to her elder son, namely, Sikandar Karmali. However, the aforesaid representation dated 30th October, 2007 has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that since the CCL management has already issued order for providing monetary benefit to the petitioner, therefore, her representation for providing employment to her elder son is not acceptable. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this writ application. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment, her age was about 40 years. This fact is also accepted by the CCL in its counter affidavit at paragraph no. 16. It is further submitted that in the counter affidavit it is stated that the high level medical board, after examining the petitioner had concluded that at the relevant time, she was aged about 42 and 1/2 years. Learned counsel further submits that as per clause 9.5.0 (II) of the NCWA-VI, it is clear that if the female dependent is less than 45 years then she has option either to accept the monetary compensation or employment. Learned counsel submits that it is admitted position that petitioner, at the relevant time, gave option for employment, but the CCL Management was compelling her to accept the monetary benefit in place of employment. Learned counsel submits that it is admitted position that petitioner, at the relevant time, gave option for employment, but the CCL Management was compelling her to accept the monetary benefit in place of employment. It is submitted that in fact CCL had passed order for providing monetary benefit against the will of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is clear from the impugned order that petitioner has refused to accept the monetary benefit and filed a representation for giving employment to her elder son as per the earlier advise of the CCL. But now the CCL refused to provide employment to petitioner's elder son on the ground that CCL has passed order for giving monetary benefit to the petitioner as per clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VI. It is submitted that aforesaid action of the CCL is highly arbitrary and against the NCWA-VI. 4. On the other hand, Sri D.K. Chakarverty, learned counsel appearing for the CCL submits that since the CCL has already granted monetary benefit to the petitioner as per Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VI, therefore, the question of giving employment to the petitioner's son does not arise. Therefore, no interference require by this Court. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case as well as the provisions of NCWA-VI. Clause 9.5.0 deals with the employment/monetary compensation to female dependents. Sub Clause (ii) of 9.5.0 of the NCWA-VI reads as under:- 9.5.0.Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent (i)....... (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/-per month or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii)........ (iv)....... (v)....... From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that if the female dependent is less than 45 years of age then she has got two option either to accept monetary compensation or employment. It is clear from the impugned order that petitioner has not accepted the advise of the CCL and requested that she may be given employment in instead of monetary compensation but the CCL rejected her claim on the ground that her two sons are major. 6. It is clear from the impugned order that petitioner has not accepted the advise of the CCL and requested that she may be given employment in instead of monetary compensation but the CCL rejected her claim on the ground that her two sons are major. 6. In my view, the aforesaid action of the CCL is against the provisions of clause 9.5.0 (II) of NCWA-VI, which shows that if the female dependent is less than 45 years then she has got option to accept monetary benefit or employment. Thus, at the relevant time, it was not open for the respondent-CCL to give monetary benefit to the petitioner against her will, because at that time she was aged about 42½ years. It further appears from the impugned order that up till now, petitioner had not taken monetary benefit. It also appears that she filed application on 30.10.2007 for providing employment to her elder son, namely, Sikandar Karmali. The aforesaid representation rejected by the impugned order. Thus, in my view, the CCL is bound to give employment to the petitioner's son on the compassionate ground. 7. In that view of the matter, I allow this writ application and quash the impugned order as contained in Annexure-12 to this writ application and direct the respondent-CCL to provide employment to the petitioner's son, namely, Sikandar karmali on compassionate ground.