JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith pay the monetary compensation for three years w.e.f. 10.08.1998 in terms of the provision of Clause 9.5.0.(iii) of National Coal Wages Agreement VI (NCWA for short) with interest @ 12% on the amount of monetary compensation. 2. The brief fact, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Virjina Kindo, who was posted in the Area Account Office, Kuju as a Peon under the respondent-M/s. CCL, died in harness on 10.08.1998 leaving behind her two minor daughters i.e. one Miss. Roshalia Kindo and another Miss. Manjula Kindo (petitioner in the present case). It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner had predeceased her mother. After death of the mother of petitioner, her elder sister filed an application for employment as per the provisions of NCWA. Since the grievance of the elder sister of petitioner was not acceded to, she filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) no.405 of 2004 and vide order dated 10.02.2004, this Court has been pleased to direct the respondents to provide employment to elder sister of the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, the respondents preferred appeal being L.P.A. no.262 of 2004 against the order dated 10.02.2004 passed in W.P.(S) no.405 of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2005, as is evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. After dismissal of the aforesaid L.P.A., the elder sister of the petitioner got employment vide letter dated 21.06.2006. After the elder sister was given employment, the petitioner requested the respondents vide letters dated 30.08.2006 & 10.07.2008 for payment of monetary compensation, as is evident from Annexures-6 & 7 to the writ petition). Since the respondents have turned deaf ear to the grievance of the petitioner, she has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein the provision of Clause 9.5.0. of NCWA (iii) has been referred to. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein the provision of Clause 9.5.0. of NCWA (iii) has been referred to. Learned counsel further submits that in view of aforesaid provision, the petitioner is entitled for monetary compensation. Learned counsel further submits that the provisions of NCWA VI is binding on the respondents and they are duty bound and obligated to follow the provision of NCWA. Learned counsel further submits that if the respondents have not followed the provision of NCWA, it will amount to arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been categorically stated that neither the name of the petitioner was ever kept in the live roster nor such claim earlier was ever made and, as such, any relief arising thereof even otherwise has been long back extinguished and after expiry of more than 10 years from the date of issue of appointment letter dated 21.06.2006 and after expiry of more than 19 years from the date of death of the employee on 10.08.1998 deserves rejection at its threshold. It has further been submitted that even the benefit of provision cannot claim as a bonanza, which would otherwise defeat the very purpose and object of providing monetary compensation during the period when the dependents' name was kept in the live roster. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that monetary compensation cannot be claimed as a matter of right at any point of time and it is well settled that no monetary compensation or compassionate employment can be provided that too after a long lapse of time. Learned counsel further submits that since the mother of the petitioner died on 10.08.1998 and the claim for monetary compensation has been made in the year 2008 after almost lapse of ten years and by virtue of efflux of time, the very object of monetary compensation under the provision of live roster has been frustrated. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get any equable relief so far it relates to monetary compensation. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get any equable relief so far it relates to monetary compensation. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, the relief, sought for, cannot be acceded to at this distance of time because the petitioner ought to have filed representation for monetary compensation with much promptitude at the relevant point of time in accordance with the scheme of NCWA. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the elder sister of the petitioner has got employment under the provision of NCWA by virtue of order of this Court passed in W.P.(S) no.405 of 2004. Therefore, the respondents have shown their concern by giving promotion to the elder sister of the petitioner. 8. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provision of Clause 9.5.0. of NCWA: “9.5.0.(iii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ….....the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (I) & (ii) above.” 9. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be crystal clear that the monetary compensation to a female dependent is admissible till attainment of majority. 10. It has been stated at the Bar that the petitioner attained the majority in the year 2002 and the application for monetary compensation ought to have been filed prior to the aforesaid year. That having not been done, the petitioner is not entitled to get any monetary compensation because of delay and laches. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to give any direction to the respondents for payment of monetary compensation. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition sans merit is dismissed.