JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay the monetary compensation under para 9.3.0 from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 11.03.1997 and for direction upon the respondents to modify office order dated 12.11.2007 whereby monetary benefit has been sanctioned w.e.f 01.08.2007 instead of March, 1997 i.e. the date of death of her husband and also for direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary with interest. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 11.03.1997 while serving as Quarry Mazdoor in Loyabad Colliery of respondents. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner-wife applied for employment on compassionate ground, which was rejected stating that she has crossed the age of 45 years and as directed by respondents, she filed application for employment of her daughter, but, ultimately, it was also rejected and vide letter dated 31.12.2002 she was informed that the competent authority vide letter dated 21.12.2002 has approved her case for monetary compensation. However, being aggrieved with the order of rejection of employment of her daughter, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 705 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2005 with direction to the respondents to decide the question of payment of consequential monetary to the widow-petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the writ Court, the petitioner preferred appeal, being L.P.A. No. 169 of 2005, which was dismissed on 28.08.2006 declining to interfere with the order passed by writ Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before Hon'ble Apex Court but it met with the same fate and C.C. No. 832 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2007. 3. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager, Sijua Area informed the petitioner to submit his claim for monetary benefit with relevant documents and accordingly, the petitioner made representation before the respondents-authorities requesting to allow her monetary benefits from the date of her death of her husband i.e. 11.03.1997 with interest @ 5 % as directed in W.P. (S) No. 705 of 2005. But, vide letter dated 12/19.11.2007, the petitioner was informed that under para 9.3.0, the monetary benefit/compensation has been granted to the petitioner @ 3000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2007. 4. But, vide letter dated 12/19.11.2007, the petitioner was informed that under para 9.3.0, the monetary benefit/compensation has been granted to the petitioner @ 3000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2007. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to clause 9.5.0, there is specific provision for employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workman who die while in service. It has been admitted that employment of the petitioner was denied as she crossed the age of 45 years but she is entitled to get monetary compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of death of her husband. It has further been submitted that moreover, it is the authorities concerned who have approved/sanctioned the monetary benefit way back in 2002 vide order dated 30.12.2002, so there is no valid reason to give it effective from 01.08.2007 rather the petitioner is entitled to get the same w.e.f. March, 1997. 5. In support of her argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dukhni Devi v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors as reported in 2014 (2) JCR 117 : 2013 (4) JLJR 571 wherein it has been held that petitioner-widow is entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband i.e. 1997 even though she applied the same in the 2010. 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the petitioner, who did not accept the offer made by the respondents-authorities relating to monetary benefits, when it was found that she is not found fit for employment and she remained herself engaged in fighting by filing writ petition in which the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to dispose of the writ application with a direction to decide the question relating to monetary compensation and same was up-held up-to Hon'ble Apex Court. It has further been submitted on repeated request made by authorities to furnish necessary papers like copy of Bank Pass Book and family relation certificate etc, she did not furnish the same, however, when the petitioner applied for monetary compensation and submitted document vide letter dated 25.07.2007, as per the policy of the company, the petitioner was allowed monetary compensation @ Rs. 3000/- per month w.e.f 01.08.2007. 7. 3000/- per month w.e.f 01.08.2007. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was denied on the ground that petitioner is over-age. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment of her daughter on 21.08.2001, as evident from Annexure 4 to the writ application, which was though denied stating that she was underage at the time of death of her husband and claim is barred by limitation. However, the competent authority has considered to pay monetary compensation, which was communicated to her vide letter dated 31.12.2002 meaning thereby at this stage the authorities concerned were in principle agreeable to pay monetary compensation. 8. Be that as it may be, the petitioner being aggrieved by order of denial of appointment of her daughter approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 705 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2005, operative portion of which is quoted herein below: "In the circumstances, the case is remitted with direction to the respondents to decide the question of payment of consequential monetary benefits to the widow of late Budhu Belder and pay the admitted benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 5% on such admitted dues from the date of death of the employee." (own emphasis) 9. Though, the respondents have drawn attention of Court towards Annexure B/1 i.e. approval letter dated 12.12.2002 of the General Manager, whereby approval has been made for monetary compensation, wherein at Clause 1, it is mentioned that payment against such monetary benefit shall be commenced from the first day of the very next month on which date an application is made by the petitioner. But, I am of the considered view that any such clause/circular shall not be applicable to petitioner as circular cannot over-ride the effect of N.C.W.A agreement, which is a bipartite agreement between the employer and employee. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the respondents-authorities have all jurisdiction to issue such circulars, but, such circular can never be said to be operative in exclusion to the settlement (N.C.W.A) entered in between the parties. 10. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefit. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the respondents-authorities have all jurisdiction to issue such circulars, but, such circular can never be said to be operative in exclusion to the settlement (N.C.W.A) entered in between the parties. 10. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefit. The only dispute is from which date the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to get interest. So far it relates to date of entitlement of the petitioner for monetary compensation, from plain reading of Annexure 2 dated 30.12.2002, it appears that competent authority vide letter dated 21.12.2002 decided to give monetary compensation instead of employment but nowhere it is averred the date from which the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit or there is no any other clause describing date of entitlement or there is no chit of paper which suggests that the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefit from the date which she submitted required papers nor the N.C.W.A. V, the provision under which consequential monetary benefit, speaks anything about deciding date. But, from plain reading of operative portion of order dated 22.02.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 705 of 2005, it appears that Court directed to make payment from the date of death of employee. Even otherwise also, these provision comes under social security, the respondents-BCCL being modal employer should have borne in mind the brooding presence of constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal as reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70 . 11. So far interest over the unpaid monetary compensation is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the same as it is petitioner who even after passing of order dated 22.02.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 705 of 2005 whereby this Court ordered "...... 11. So far interest over the unpaid monetary compensation is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the same as it is petitioner who even after passing of order dated 22.02.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 705 of 2005 whereby this Court ordered "...... to pay the admitted benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 5% on such admitted dues from the date of death of the employee", chose to go for appeal and when the said order confirmed up-to Hon'ble Apex Court, she decided to go for monetary benefit in the year 2007 from which date she is getting the monetary benefit. 12. As a logical sequiter to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to pay the unpaid monetary compensation, without interest, as per the scheme floated under social security, from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 11.03.1997 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.