JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Baruah, for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel for the Coal India Limited assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta. 2. Brief facts of the case may be noted at the outset for disposal of the writ petition. The elder brother of the petitioner late M. Guruloo was an employee of the respondent Coal India Limited. As per the service record of late M. Guruloo besides the petitioner, he has a father, wife, brother and a son. The late employee expired while in service on 25.07.2002. According to the petitioner, her brother who died in harness during his lifetime was separated with his wife by way of divorce. The other brother of the petitioner is also no more. The late employee left behind a ‘will’ in favour of the petitioner making her the beneficiary of all the properties possessed by him. The said ‘will’ was probated by the District Judge of Tinsukia vide Probate Case No. 139/2002. According to the petitioner she was totally dependent upon the late employee and it was for this reason that he left behind a ‘will’ in her favour. The claim of the petitioner for either monitory relief or employment having failed to evoke favourable consideration by the respondent authorities, the petitioner through her counsel sent a notice to the respondents on 17.02.2015 (Annexure-C) claiming that the petitioner was not only the sister of the deceased employee but was his dependent and therefore, she was entitled to be given an employment under the respondent establishment. 3. That in reply to the said notice, the General Manager (P), Northeastern Coal fields Margherita vide communication dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure-D) informed that the petitioner was not entitled to any monthly pension as per the Coal Mines Pension Scheme1998 and further as per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), there was no provision for the sister of an employee of Coal India Ltd. to be given an employment as a dependent of the employee concerned. It was further stated that as per the NCWA, only the wife and unmarried daughter were entitle for monthly compensation. Hence, under the standing guidelines employment and monthly pension cannot be provided to the petitioner. 4. It was further stated that as per the NCWA, only the wife and unmarried daughter were entitle for monthly compensation. Hence, under the standing guidelines employment and monthly pension cannot be provided to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner again on 08.02.2016 served a notice to the respondent authorities asking them to re-consider her case as an exception by liberal construction of the relevant guidelines. The said notice was again replied to by the respondents through their communication dated 11.06.2016 (Annexure-F) conveying the petitioner that no relief as claimed could be given to her. It is under such circumstance that the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied has approached this Court through the instant writ proceeding. 5. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner as the younger sister of deceased employee was very much dependent upon him and likewise, her deceased brother was also dependent upon her. The deceased employee left behind a ‘will’ in favour of the petitioner which consequently was probated and the properties mentioned in the will devolved upon the petitioner and same goes to show that the petitioner was dependent upon the late employee. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the relevant provisions contained in the NCWA cannot be given a limited and narrow interpretation. In fact since the benefits available to the dependent of the employee of the respondents on account of death in harness being a compassionate scheme, a liberal construction of the term ‘dependant’ is called for. From the materials and contentions advanced by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is indeed and dependent of the deceased employee and therefore she should be considered by the respondent authorities by giving her employment or monitory compensation that is available to a female dependent as per clause 9.50 of the NCWA. 6. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents through one Shri Jhinoj Kumar Satapathy on 09.05.2017 cannot be accepted inasmuch as besides stating that he represents the North-eastern Coal Fields, Coal India Ltd., Margherita, he has neither disclosed his designation nor has he given the details as to how he has been authorized to file the affidavit. He therefore submits that the contents of the affidavit cannot be accepted as the stand of the respondents against the claim of the writ petitioner. Mr. He therefore submits that the contents of the affidavit cannot be accepted as the stand of the respondents against the claim of the writ petitioner. Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that consideration the relation of the writ petitioner with that of the deceased employee and importantly being his dependent, the respondents should be directed to afford the petitioner and opportunity of employment in their establishment or in the alternative, pay monitory compensation as per their scheme contained in the NCWA to the petitioner. 7. Ms. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents at the outset submits that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and the writ petition is liable to be rejected on account of the petitioner having failed to disclose the fact that she is married to one Shri. M. Apparao which can be easily seen from the order of Probate granted by District Judge, Tinsukia and annexed by the writ petitioner herself as (Annexure-B) to the writ petition. She submits that the same amounts to suppression of facts and therefore, the writ petition should be rejected even on this ground alone. Ms. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel by referring to clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA submits that the provision of giving employment to the dependent of the employee who die in harness extends only the wife or husband of the employee as the case may be. It also extends to an unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for such employment, the younger brother, widowed daughter/widow daughter-in-law and son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earning of the deceased employee may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased employee for extending the benefit of employment or monitory compensation. The petitioner on the other hand is the sister of the deceased employee and in fact a married sister, the scheme nowhere contemplates consideration of a sister of the employee and as such the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the scheme. She further submits that in fact in the year 2012, the brother of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate employment under the respondents which however was only rejected on account of long delay as per the stipulation of the relevant guidelines in this regard. She further submits that in fact in the year 2012, the brother of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate employment under the respondents which however was only rejected on account of long delay as per the stipulation of the relevant guidelines in this regard. The deceased employee having expired on 25.07.2002 and the said application being belatedly filed in 2012 was therefore rejected. 8. Ms. B. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that in so far as the deponent of the affidavit dated 09.05.2017 is concerned, he is indeed an employee of the respondent organization and employed as an agent. An agent in fact she submits is equivalent to a Manager of the Northeastern Coal India Ltd. and therefore, non-mentioning of his designation cannot be the sole ground for not accepting the affidavit-in-opposition. To substantiate the authorization of the deponent in the affidavit she has produced an authorization letter. The same is issued by the General Manager of Northeastern Coal Fields, Coal India Ltd., Margherita dated 05.05.2017. The signature of the deponent has also been duly attested in the said authorization letter. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to reject the affidavit-in-opposition on the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As for the other contention raised by the writ petitioner, it may be noticed that the petitioner admittedly being the sister of the deceased employee and the provisions contend in Chapter IX of the NCWA more particularly under Clause 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 excludes sister of the deceased employee whether married or on unmarried. In absence of the petitioner challenging the said provision for non-inclusion of the sister of the deceased employee, I am of the considered view that a liberal construction of the said provision is not possible. If such construction is to be made, the same cannot be limited to sister only and the number of dependents that can be related to the employee would be endless. It may be noticed that the petitioner herself realized that the benefits as claim for is not available to a sister of the employee and therefore, even her legal notice through her counsel served to the respondents dated 08.02.2016, she had asked for reconsideration of her case as an exceptional one by liberal construction of the relevant provisions or even amend the same considering the scope and object behind the provision. In this context, what can only be observed by this Court is that the relaxation as sought for by the petitioner can only be determined and accorded by the employers themselves. It is not for the Court to embark upon an interpretation when it has not been called to do so. In short, the petitioner has not questioned the relevant provisions in his writ petition by challenging the same and therefore, considering the submissions and materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance against the respondents. It is a settled law that Court does not grant relief to a litigant on the basis of sympathy unless there are enforceable rights which has been violated. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Parties are directed bare their respective costs. The authorization letter dated 05.05.2017 shall be kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.