JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard the parties. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das appears for respondent-C. C.L. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) For quashing the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 by which representation of the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.09.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1725 of 2013 has been rejected. (ii) Further prayer is for allowing the petitioner to join and work and the respondent be further directed to make payment of arrears of salary as well as current salary. (iii) For issuance of writ/order in continuance of the appointment letter dated 13.01.2012 confirming the service of petitioner in terms of Para 9.5.0, 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A.VIII. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The case of petitioner is that one Duryodhan Mahali (since now dead) was a permanent employee/regular employee of respondent-C. C.L. as Trainee Category-I in the pay scale of Rs.38.47048.27 plus usual allowances as admissible under Natural Coal Wage Agreement. Since Duryodhan Mahali was continuously, sincerely and diligently discharging his duty under the supervision and to satisfaction of concerned officials of respondent-company. It is stated that Duryodhan Mahali was married to one Anita Kumari but the said marriage stood annulled under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of divorce granted in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 3 of 1997. The marriage of petitioner was solemnized on 28.06.2006 at Rajrappa Temple as per Hindu Rites. The said Duryodhan Mahali while taking a policy ensuring his life has nominated the petitioner under Section 39 of the Insurance Act to be his nominee. The name of petitioner also finds entered in the concerned electoral area and identity card no. FBX2475408 issued by Election Commission of India. It is stated that petitioner is graduate having date of birth 20.08.1972 as per the matriculation certificate. It is stated that out of wedlock of petitioner and Duryodhan Mahali, two child one male and another female were born. It is the case of petitioner that during his life time late Duryodhan Mahali made an application before Block Development Officer, Gomia for issuing a membership certificate concerning his family upon which a certificate no.31 dated 10.02.2010 was issued by the Block Development Officer on the basis of enquiry report of the Panchayat Sewak. It is the case of petitioner that during his life time late Duryodhan Mahali made an application before Block Development Officer, Gomia for issuing a membership certificate concerning his family upon which a certificate no.31 dated 10.02.2010 was issued by the Block Development Officer on the basis of enquiry report of the Panchayat Sewak. The aforesaid certificate contains the name of the petitioner as wife of the deceased employee and at that point of time the girl child was not born and so only the name of the child of petitioner and late Duryodhan Mahali finds place in the aforesaid certificate. Duryodhan Mahali made an application on 16.12.2010 before the Personnel Manager, Kathara Colliery requesting for entering name of his wife i.e. present petitioner and children in his service book and enclosed a copy of membership certificate no.31 dated 10.02.2010. The husband of petitioner died in harness on 13.01.2012 due to an accident while he was on duty at Kathara Open Cast Project at about 2.30 p.m. on 13.01.2012. The petitioner also recorded his fardbeyan before Sub Inspector of Police-in-Charge, Kathara O.P. on 13.01.2012 and U.D. Case No. 02 of 2012 was instituted. The death was reported in local newspaper and on intervention and insistence of Labour Unions, the General Manager of the Area issued a provisional/adhoc employment offer letter dated 13.01.2012 in favour of the present petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner received letter dated 13.01.2012 issued under the signature of C.C.L., Kathara. In view of sudden death due to an accident of her husband Duryodhan Mahali, the aforesaid letter was said to be temporary/provisional employment purely on adhoc basis for six months with immediate effect subject to completion of all required formalities under 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A.VIII on initial basis for Category-I under N.C.W.A.VIII. It is said that soon after completion of the last rites, rituals of her husband, petitioner reported for her physical fitness examination and she also reported for joining before the Project Officer, Kathara Colliery which is evident from letter dated 14.01.2012 but petitioner was not allowed to work. The petitioner also made a declaration on oath before the Notary Public that she would keep Sewanti Devi, her motherinlaw and maintain her. Sewanti Devi, motherinlaw of her husband had also given no objection regarding appointment of petitioner pursuant to death of her son nor she would have any objection in future. The petitioner also made a declaration on oath before the Notary Public that she would keep Sewanti Devi, her motherinlaw and maintain her. Sewanti Devi, motherinlaw of her husband had also given no objection regarding appointment of petitioner pursuant to death of her son nor she would have any objection in future. The petitioner also submitted the affidavits sworn by her motherinlaw addressed to Project Officer, Kathara Colliery along with copy of divorce suit and the application made by the deceased employee during his life time which was duly received in the office of Project Officer, Kathara Colliery on 10.02.2012. In spite of the aforesaid formalities and requirements, the petitioner was not allowed to join work neither was paid any salary. On demand, the petitioner also submitted her marriage certificate of late Duryodhan Mahali along with representation on 06.07.2012. The respondents were also informed by Sewanti Devi, mother of late Duryodhan Mahali regarding dissolution of marriage of Anita Devi with Duryodhan Mahali and reference of Title Matrimonial Suit No.3 of 1997 and the decree was also furnished and it was also brought to the knowledge that Anita Devi had no issue from Duryodhan Mahali. The mother/motherinlaw of the petitioner furnished the details of marriage of the petitioner along with late Duryodhan Mahali before the Project Officer, Kathara Colliery on 14.07.2012 and when no steps were taken by the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to move this Court in W.P. (S) No.1725 of 2013 which was disposed of on 17.09.2013 directing the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and pass reasoned order. It has also been brought to the notice that Sewanti Devi also moved the High Court for employment as well as retiral benefits but no orders were passed in their favour. In compliance of the High Court order, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent authorities which was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2014. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioner and in spite of required documents submitted by petitioner in her favour, the same has not been considered and petitioner is harassed and she is not allowed to continue her job neither she obtained death cum retiral benefits nor the salary. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is at the verge of starvation and her case should be considered immediately and she be paid the death cum retiral benefits as well as be allowed to continue on the post which she had joined earlier. Learned counsel submits that as per N.C.W.A. there is provision for appointment as well as monitory compensations as per Clause 9.3.0 and 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. Learned counsel further submits that the reasoned order passed by C.C.L. at Paragraph 7, Para 50 clearly shows that the respondents are aware of the decree of divorce dated 30.11.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in view of the fact that it is admitted fact that now only one dependent i.e. the petitioner is the only claimant for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the C.C.L. opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and justifying the impugned order argues that there is dispute regarding the dependent of the deceased employee as two wives are claiming employment in view of which the respondent-C. C.L. is unable to pass order for compassionate appointment and also regarding the retiral benefits. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that contention of learned counsel for C.C.L. is not well founded and supported by the documents. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner finds force in view of the documents brought on record and as such the petitioner deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground and also for monitory compensation as accrued to her in view of death of her late husband who died in harness. As the petitioner was already offered compassionate appointment though provisionally, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join on the earlier post with immediate effect in continuance of early appointment and take further steps for payment of death-cum-retiral benefit. However, it is made clear that as per the agreements and as per the settled law, the petitioner has to give an undertaking for maintaining mother-in-law till her death. 7. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the settled proposition of law, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2014 is hereby, quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that as per the agreements and as per the settled law, the petitioner has to give an undertaking for maintaining mother-in-law till her death. 7. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and the settled proposition of law, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2014 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the joining with all consequential benefits.