JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Letter being Ref. No. PD/112/2011/383 Dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure-10) whereby representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure-9) for appointment of her son on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Manager (PL) (C&J), IISCO Steel Plant (Respondent No. 4). The said application was filed by her in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 13.01.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5605 of 2010. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure2). 3. The facts of the case in brief is that petitioner's husband Ramanad Singh, aged – 55 years was working as Mining Sardar, Upper Seam, Department of Mining, Chasnala Colliery, Chasnala having his personal number 40075. Upon accidental death of petitioner's husband on 20.03.2008, one U.D. Case No. 258 of 2008 was lodged where son of the deceased claimed that his father died while going to attend his duty. It was reported that on 20.03.2008, at around 7:45 a.m., the deceased had started for attending his duty at Chasnala Colliery on foot from the quarter and at around 8:00 a.m., when he was crossing Iron Pool of Kandra, he slipped and fell down and became senseless. Upon information his family members reached to the spot and with the help of local people, the deceased was brought to Chasnala Colliery Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. During course of inquiry, it was confirmed that said Iron Pool had become very old and was in bad shape which resulted into falling down of the deceased resulting his death. The postmortem report disclosed cause of death due to injuries caused in the head and chest from a hard substance. The Assistant Manager (PL) [Respondent No. 3], vide his letter no. PD/111/08/420, dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-2) informed the petitioner that dead body of the deceased was brought to Chasnala Dispensary on 20.03.2008 at 9:00 a.m.. The letter further mentions that death occurred while the deceased was coming on duty for first shift and further, employment against the death will be given after postmortem report as per rule of the Company within a week. The letter further mentions that death occurred while the deceased was coming on duty for first shift and further, employment against the death will be given after postmortem report as per rule of the Company within a week. After the postmortem report received on 21.03.2008 confirming the death caused because of injuries caused by hard and blunt substance in head and chest of the deceased, the petitioner approached respondents several times for providing employment to her son Chandan Kumar Singh who fulfills the required criteria. However, when no heed was paid by the respondents even after filing representations dated 29.08.2008, 10.09.2008 and 27.07.2010, she moved this Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5605 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.01.2011 with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent no. 2. It was specifically directed by the Court to consider the representation and pass appropriate order within six weeks after receipt thereof and if the petitioner's son is found entitled, to give him employment. It is averred that vide Ref. No. PD/112/2011/383, dated 08.03.2011, the representation dated 27.01.2011 filed by the petitioner has been rejected without verifying the facts alleging therein that the petitioner's husband did not die in course of his employment and thus, the respondents have totally changed their stand without any basis and hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey submits that as per National Coal Wage Agreement – VI & VII, Chapter-IX, the respondent – employer is bound to give employment to one of the dependent of the worker who dies while in service. The petitioner's son is well within the definition of dependent as provided under Clause-9.3.3 of Chapter – IX of NCWA-VI and is also physically fit and suitable for employment as required in Clause-9.3.4 of the said Agreement. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner's husband died during the course of his service and, therefore, denial of employment to her son, is totally unjustified and arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel further submits that in view of direction passed in W.P.(S) No. 5605 of 2010, the petitioner should not have been harassed whose husband died long back on 20.03.2008. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner's husband died during the course of his service and, therefore, denial of employment to her son, is totally unjustified and arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel further submits that in view of direction passed in W.P.(S) No. 5605 of 2010, the petitioner should not have been harassed whose husband died long back on 20.03.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to take the shelter of postmortem report as the postmortem report itself always have a time of difference of about 4 to 10 hours as per medical jurisprudence and the medical evidence are required to be corroborated by the evidence. 5. On the other hand counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents submits that from the postmortem report of the deceased, time of death has been indicated as 36 – 41 hours prior to the time of postmortem examination, which has been recorded as 1:15 p.m. on 21.03.2008. On the basis of such findings of the postmortem report, the time of death comes to be 8:15 p.m. on 19.03.2008 to 1:15 a.m. on 20.03.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased employee was on 'A' Shift duty which ends at 3:00 p.m. on 19.03.2008 and did not attend the duty on 'A' Shift starting at 7:00 a.m. on 20.03.2008. On this calculation, learned counsel further submits that there is a huge gap between time of death and beginning of duty in 'A' shift on 20.03.2008 and as such, the contention of the petitioner that on 20.03.2008 at about 7:45 a.m. the deceased had started for attending his duty at Chasnala Colliery is not possible. Learned counsel further submits that with effect from 16.02.2006, in the cases of death in harness, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, has ceased to operate in collieries of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) after pay and benefits structure of collieries, non-executive employees has been brought under N.J.C.S. Structure with effect from the said date. Learned counsel further submits that with effect from 16.02.2006, in the cases of death in harness, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement, has ceased to operate in collieries of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) after pay and benefits structure of collieries, non-executive employees has been brought under N.J.C.S. Structure with effect from the said date. Referring to relevant clause namely, Clause 3.4.5 of the N.J.C.S. Agreement, learned counsel for the respondents submits that consideration for compassionate appointment can be made only in case of injury cases which causes death or permanent/temporary disablement arising during journey from residence to place of work and back within one hour of the start or end of his duty hours, provided that the accident takes place on the normal route of journey to the place or work and also in case of death or permanent total disablement due to accident arising out of and in course of employment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through records of the case. From perusal of U.D. Case lodged in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad (Annexure-1 Series) read with letter being Ref. No. PD/111/08/420, dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-2), it is quite evident that the respondents themselves have come to the conclusion that the death occurred while the deceased was coming on duty for the first shift. So far postmortem report is concerned, this is an admitted fact and has already been held in catena of decisions that the postmortem report itself always have a time of difference of about 4 to 10 hours as per medical jurisprudence. Further, the medical evidence unless corroborated by the evidence, could not justify the stand of the respondents. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner's son deserves appointment on compassionate grounds after death of his father. Further, the medical evidence unless corroborated by the evidence, could not justify the stand of the respondents. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner's son deserves appointment on compassionate grounds after death of his father. I further hold that since on the date of death of petitioner's father, neither any enquiry had been initiated nor any evidence has come to rebut claim of the petitioner that her husband-deceased employee died in course of his employment and, therefore, it would be deemed that he died in course of employment and as such his dependents would be entitled to get all the benefits available under Rule of the Company and Company is liable to give all benefits to the petitioner including appointment of petitioner's son. 8. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order issued vide Letter being Ref. No. PD/112/2011/383 Dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure-10), is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner afresh for appointment of her son on compassionate ground and further issue letter of appointment in his favour within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.