JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:- (I) For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent No. 7 to send to this Hon’ble Court all the records appertaining to issuance of letter dated 30.03.2016 vide reference No. 762, wherein it has been intimated to the petitioners that according to the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (for short “NCWA”), mother of the deceased employee does not come within the category of the dependent as enshrined under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA. (II) For a further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately consider the case of petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased son. (III) For a further writ commanding the respondents to frame the National Coal Wage Agreement and its provisions taking into consideration the case of such workers either male or female who are unmarried and on whom in spite of full dependency of their parents, sisters and brothers, their cases are not considered for compassionate appointment on the ground that parents i.e. mother, father and dependents i.e. brothers and sisters do no come within the purview of the dependents as enshrined under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA. (IV) For a further direction upon the respondents particularly respondent No. 7 to consider the case of petitioner No. 1 as a special case in view of the fact that during her lifetime she lost her husband and became widow at a very early age and offered employment to her only son Kundan Prakash, after giving no objection on the ground that he would maintain her as well as his inborn blind sister and his another sister who has just been married in the year 2014. (V) For a further direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 taking into consideration the fact that after death of her son, late Kundan Prakash, she (the widow mother), a completely blind sister of late Kundan Prakash namely, Puja Kumari are left without any source of income. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The husband of petitioner No. 1, late Anil Kumar had been working under the respondent-CCL and died in harness while on duty. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The husband of petitioner No. 1, late Anil Kumar had been working under the respondent-CCL and died in harness while on duty. Thereafter, according to the provisions of NCWA-IX, his son Sri Kundan Prakash was granted compassionate appointment in lieu of his deceased father. Subsequently, vide office Order dated 05.08.2011, the son of petitioner No. 1 was posted at Regional Store, Kuju Area. The petitioner No. 1 had also granted no objection certificate mentioning therein that her son would take care of his mother (petitioner No. 1), inborn blind sister, Puja Kumari and also his unmarried sister at that time namely, Seema Kumari. Thereafter, Seema Kumari solemnized her marriage in the year 2014 with one Mukesh Kumar. At the time of grant of appointment letter, the son of petitioner No. 1 submitted an nomination form in Form PS-3, wherein the name of petitioner No. 1 stands at Sl. No. 1 as his mother, name of Puja Kumari appears at Sl. No. 2 as his sister, who at the relevant time was 18 years of age and is completely blind and the name of his another sister Seema Kumari appears at Sl. No. 3. 4. Unfortunately, the son of petitioner No. 1 also met with an accident and died on 15.08.2015 leaving behind his mother, inborn blind and unmarried sister and also another married sister (whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2014 itself) with his brother-in-law as his dependents. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 applied for grant of compassionate appointment in place of her deceased son under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA, since she has no source of income to survive herself and her inborn blind daughter and are facing financial hardship. She has also furnished all the required documents for her compassionate appointment. Upon receipt of such application, vide letter dated 30.03.2016, the respondent No. 7, in a very whimsical and arbitrary manner, rejected the claim of petitioner No. 1, on the ground that under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX, the mother and sister do not come within the definition of dependent. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mahesh Tewari strenuously urges that Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-IX is completely ultra vires to the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the mother has categorically held to be Class ‘A’ category of dependent. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mahesh Tewari strenuously urges that Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-IX is completely ultra vires to the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the mother has categorically held to be Class ‘A’ category of dependent. However, without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-IX has been formulated, which is completely against the basic structure of Constitution of India, in view of the fact that mother being Class ‘A’ category of dependent of her son has been declared not to be the dependent under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-IX. It is submitted that the Mines Act has been enacted in the year 1950 and under the powers given in the said Act, a Certified Standing Order has been formulated for running of the Coal Industries including the present respondent-CCL. 6. It is further submitted that Clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders of NCWA are being entered into by and between the Management of Coal Companies and the registered Trade Union of the workers on the intervention of the Central Government generally known as bipartite settlement under NCWA and the same is binding force upon one or all related with the Coal Industries. However, the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 have been formulated taking into consideration the fact that after the death of unmarried employees either male or female, their respective dependant completely come on the road, became destitute as there is no source of livelihood, since a bread earner of the family, on whom they depend, under unfortunate circumstances passed away. 7. Learned counsel further submits that it is a special case since son of petitioner No. 1 has passed away at a very young age of 23 years and at the time of his death, petitioner No. 1 was 43 years old. Apart from that, she along with her inborn blind daughter had completely been dependent upon the earning of her deceased son and after the death of his son, she became destitute without having any source of livelihood either for herself or for her inborn blind daughter. Hence, she applied for her appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased son, which was rejected by the respondent-CCL vide letter dated 30.03.2016. 8. Learned counsel submits that the respondents being the creatures of Statute cannot act beyond the four corners of the same. Hence, she applied for her appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased son, which was rejected by the respondent-CCL vide letter dated 30.03.2016. 8. Learned counsel submits that the respondents being the creatures of Statute cannot act beyond the four corners of the same. It is further submitted that the respondents authorities cannot be allowed to enter into a bipartite settlement known as NCWA after every four years by incorporating such provisions which are completely unconstitutional, a clear violation of the Constitutional mandates and a clear cut violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Clause 9.3.0 have been incorporated in NCWA, wherein amendment on compassionate ground to dependents have been enshrined but mother and sister have not been included in the list of the dependents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mahesh Tewari argued that under Section 2 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, definition of dependent is very clear. Mother comes under category ‘A’ dependent. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as per the definition of dependent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, mother is said to be the dependent and in view of that the petitioners is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as the mother comes within the definition of dependent and in the instant case, she has shown to be fully dependent on the deceased son. Learned counsel further argued that even Cl. 9.3.2 of the NCWA is very clear regarding female appointment and in view of that also, the petitioner No.1 deserves to be appointed. 10. In order to strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Tewari relied on several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of V. Siva Murthe vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 Sec. (L&S) 335 and in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 . 11. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Madhusudan Das & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 . 11. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das assisted by Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Das argued that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of the deceased employee and for the fact that mothers are not included in the definition of dependent family members under the relevant provisions of NCWA for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground, her case for compassionate appointment was rejected by a letter dated 30.03.2016. In this regard, learned counsel has referred the relevant provisions of NCWA for the purpose of compassionate appointment, which reads as under:- “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, younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased may be considered to be the dependents of the deceased.” 12. Learned counsel further submits that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is exception to the normal recruitment process and the compassionate appointment can be allowed only if any provisions/schemes/policies/administrative instructions are framed and in any event of the matter, the compassionate appointment is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing provisions/schemes/policies/administrative instructions etc. and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment de-hors the scheme, etc. In catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it has been held that compassionate appointment de-hors the provisions/schemes/policies/administrative instructions are not maintainable in the eyes of law. The appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of the deceased employee, is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners’ claim for compassionate appointment being de-hors the provision of NCWA, has rightly been rejected and the rejection does not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. 13. Mr. Amit Kumar Das vehemently argued that Section 3(i) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is only attracted in case of accident and for compensation and not for employment and as such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 14. 14. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A public appointment must be offered to a person who is entitled thereof. All requirement, subject to just exception, must be made in terms of rules framed under the proviso appended under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No appointment can be made dehors the constitutional scheme of making offer of public appointment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a large number of decisions has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate is a concession and not a right. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to his rescue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. (Supra) has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions. 15. In the instant case, the mother does not fall within the definition of dependents and as such, there is no error committed by the respondents in refusing appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner No.1 keeping in view that no appointment can be extended dehors the rules. 16. As a cumulative effective of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, circulars and the judicial pronouncements and in view of the settled propositions that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 17. As regards reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on Workmen’s Compensation Act regarding definition of mother, rightly it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that Workmen’s Compensation Act is only attracted in case of accident and only for monitory compensation and not for compassionate appointment and it is only the NCWA which is attracted in case of compassionate appointment. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for monitory compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if such benefit has not been extended till date.