JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The instant petition is at admission stage, however, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, taken on board for final consideration. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 3. Appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) sought compassionate appointment on account of death of his mother, late Chinia Devi, who died on 20th September, 1991, in harness while working as Piece Rated Worker in Pindara Colliery, C.C.L, Mandu, Ramgarh (hereinafter referred to as C.C.L). At that time, he was of the age of about 12 years as is clear from Annexure - 1 prepared by C.C.L itself. After attaining majority, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1994 but his case was rejected in 1998. 4. The Court has been informed by Mr.Das that subsequently also the petitioner moved C.C.L through another representation, which was also rejected in 1999 and then in the year 2012, after lapse of 13 years, he once again made a representation before the Ministry of Coal, which was sent to C.C.L for consideration and again the case of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2013. It is thereafter he knocked the door of learned Writ Court through the medium of W.P (S) No.6985/2013, which now stands dismissed, vide impugned order dated 29.06.2015, primarily on the ground of gross delay. He thus states that the petitioner, in any case, cannot ask for compassionate appointment not only because there was considerable delay at his end and that ground alone can be said to be sufficient for rejection of his claim, even otherwise in terms of N.C.W.A he has already crossed the age limit as the maximum age for compassionate appointment for male is 35 years and for female 45 years. 5. On a specific query put to Mr.Das, appearing for CCL, whether CCL had ever considered the case of two sisters of the petitioner for grant of monetary compensation or employment in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of N.C.W.A., he stated at the Bar that perhaps that aspect has never been considered by CCL. 6. 5. On a specific query put to Mr.Das, appearing for CCL, whether CCL had ever considered the case of two sisters of the petitioner for grant of monetary compensation or employment in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of N.C.W.A., he stated at the Bar that perhaps that aspect has never been considered by CCL. 6. In this context, it would be apt to reproduce Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of N.C.W.A., which reads- “In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes 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.2000/- 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.” 7. In all fairness, CCL should have taken pain to consider the case of either of the two sisters of the petitioner for monetary compensation in terms of the aforesaid provision. 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar is also not in a position to inform the Court whether at any stage any of the sisters of the petitioner had moved CCL for employment or monetary compensation as per the provisions of Clause 9.5.0.(ii) of N.C.W.A.. 9. Be that as it may, in case any application is moved in this regard on behalf of any of the sisters of the petitioner in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of N.C.W.A., it is directed that respondent-CCL shall take decision on the same within four weeks only so that if she is found entitled to any relief on the strength of the aforesaid provision of N.C.W.A., the same flows towards her. Needless to say that for which period from the death of deceased Chinia Devi, the applicant female dependent shall be entitled to the monetary compensation depends upon the dependency status of the applicant. 10. Needless to say that for which period from the death of deceased Chinia Devi, the applicant female dependent shall be entitled to the monetary compensation depends upon the dependency status of the applicant. 10. We are conscious of the fact that Chinia Devi died in September, 1991 and that the issue for granting relief of monetary compensation is being taken by the Court after the lapse of 24 years but keeping in view the fact that it is a beneficial provision made under a settlement, and that CCL who was supposed to act fairly and reasonably even for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment when he had attained majority by keeping his case on live roster who, in any case, cannot get employment now primarily on account of age bar and that he slept over the matter for a considerably long period when his case was rejected once in 1998 and for the second time in year 1999. Even at that stage the case of any of the female dependent of the deceased could be considered by CCL, therefore, this delay, may be huge on the face of it, should not stand in the way of any female dependent of the deceased, there being lapse on the part of CCL itself who, for the reasons best known to it, did not bother to take care of the family of the deceased at the relevant point of time when they were facing acute problem financially or otherwise. It is expected of a public sector undertaking, which is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bonafidely as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Mohan Mahto v. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 144 (SC). However, in the case on hand, we are satisfied that the action of respondent-CCL is neither fair nor reasonable in ignoring its own commitment of extending monetary compensation to the female dependent. 11. The appeal on hand stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.