JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 21.08.2003 whereby petitioner's application for employment has been rejected on the ground of limitation and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for monetary compensation/employment to her elder son. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Truck Khalasi under respondent no. 3, died-in-harness on 29.01.2001, which was duly informed to the respondents on 03.02.2001. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.4 directed all concerned section to remove the name of petitioner from all concerned register/record from the date of death of deceased-employee. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 14.12.2002 before respondent no. 5 stating that since she is not physically well for employment, her son may be appointed when he attains the majority, which was rejected vide letter dated 02.06.2003 on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner again represented before respondent no. 4, but, it was informed by the respondents-authorities that no action can be taken on her appeal for re-consideration of her case. 3. The petitioner having left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the case of the petitioner is governed by Clause 9.5.0(iii) of the N.C.W.A-VI and the respondents cannot go back from the settlement known as “National Coal Wage Agreement” as the bipartite settlement is binding upon both the parties. Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to extend the benefit as provided under the agreement. It has further been submitted that under N.C.W.A-VI, there has been no mandatory stipulation of any time limit for submission of application but the respondents without considering the object and purport of the clause, meant for providing social security to the employees, rejected the application solely on the ground that the same has been filed nearly after two years of death of the deceased-employee but the time limit to apply for employment/payment of monetary compensation in respect of death from February, 2002 is one year from the date of death. 5. 5. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Mohan Mahto Central Coal Field Ltd & Ors as reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 [ 2007 (4) JLJR (SC) 144] and further in the case of Radhe Manjhi Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 3630 of 2011. 6. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner submitted application for allowing monetary compensation to her and compassionate appointment to her son on attaining the age of 18 years after expiry of more than one year and 10 months from the date of death of deceased-employee, but, the limitation for submitting application for compassionate appointment has been fixed for six months only. It has further been submitted that limitation was further extended w.e.f 27.11.2002 up-to 1 and ½ years, which was later on reverted to one year vide circular dated 19.03.2005, but, even then also the case of the petitioner is remotely covered. Hence, it was informed to the petitioner that her application is not entertain-able on the sole ground of limitation. It has further been submitted that as of now more than one and half decade has lapsed, hence, the very purpose and object of monetary compensation and compassionate appointment would be frustrated at this distance of time, hence, the petitioner does not deserve any relief, as sought for. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be apposite to quote Clause 9.3.2 and of 9.5.0(iii) of N.C.W.A-VI: 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service In so far as the female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:- (i). xxx xxx xxx (ii). xxx xxx xxx (iii). “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:- (i). xxx xxx xxx (ii). xxx xxx xxx (iii). In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependent is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (I) & (ii) above. The will be effective form 1.1.2000.” 8. From the pleadings available on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner informed the respondents about the death of her husband on 03.02.2001, who died on 29.01.2001, which was duly acknowledged by the respondents. Thereafter, after lapse of about 1 and ½ years, she represented before respondent no. 5 to provide compassionate appointment of her son and till he attains majority, she may be given monetary compensation. 9. There is no doubt that the authority is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment and monetary compensation in accordance with the scheme framed by it and further no discretion as such is left with any of the authority to give compassionate appointment and monetary compensation de hors the rule. The counsel for the respondents though referring to differing circulars submitted with vehemence that since the petitioner submitted application beyond the period of limitation for applying for compassionate appointment and monetary compensation, hence, the same has been rightly rejected, but, here it would be pertinent to note that in spite of such circulars being issued prescribing the time limit, the agreement as contained in sub-clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A. VI never gets frustrated, as it is a settlement between the both the parties and continues to remain in force unless it is altered or modified and substituted by another settlement. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the respondents-authorities have all jurisdiction to issue such circulars prescribing period of limitation, but, such circular can never be said to be operative in exclusion to the settlement entered in between the parties and case of compassionate appointment ought to have been considered under sub-clause (iii) of clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI. The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd & Ors as reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 [2007 (4) JLJR (SC) 144] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in terms of the said provision, the name of the petitioner was to be kept on a live roster till he attained the age of 18 years. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, the impugned order dated 21.08.2003 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for monetary compensation/employment to her elder son, if he has not crossed the age of upper limit for securing employment, as fixed by the respondents. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.