JUDGMENT : In the present writ application, the petitioner has approached this Court for the following relief’s:- (i) For quashing the letter/order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure-12) passed under the signature of Welfare Officer (respondent no.6) whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment only for the reason that she is the female heir of her deceased father, who was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited. (ii) Any of the relief’s which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstance of this case. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application is that father of the petitioner Narayan Bhagat was an employee of respondent-C.C.L. It was stated that mother of the petitioner had predeceased her father on 15.07.2005 itself which would be evident from the Death Certificate dated 09.03.2006. It is further stated that Narayan Bhagat had three children of whom the petitioner is the eldest which is clear from the Family Membership Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Gumla dated 21.02.2009. The father of the petitioner namely Narayan Bhagat died in harness on 12.01.2008 and a death certificate dated 29.01.2009 has been brought on record vide Annexure-3. After the death of her father, the petitioner immediately informed the respondents vide letter dated 18.02.2009 whereby the petitioner was asked to submit a duly prescribed Form for her appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that soon thereafter the petitioner submitted duly filled-up Form for her appointment on compassionate ground along with her application dated 24.02.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 20.12.1991 and in support of which she has submitted the School Transfer Certificate and Birth Certificate and in the light of her application for compassionate appointment, she requested the respondent authorities for taking immediate steps for her appointment. Petitioner was asked to submit all the educational certificates and other concerned documents needed for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner in compliance of the directions of the respondents, personally appeared before them with all the concerned documents. The respondent authorities also enquired about her marital status. In support of which a certificate was submitted by the petitioner dated 26.11.2013 issued by the Mukhiya of her village. The petitioner in compliance of the directions of the respondents, personally appeared before them with all the concerned documents. The respondent authorities also enquired about her marital status. In support of which a certificate was submitted by the petitioner dated 26.11.2013 issued by the Mukhiya of her village. The respondent authorities vide letter/order dated 29.11.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of her deceased father and being daughter of the deceased employee, was not entitled to be kept in live roster under the provisions of N.C.W.A. (Annexure-12 of the writ petition) and hence this writ petition challenging the order of rejection. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submitted that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and belongs to poor section of the society and she along with of her two sisters were fully dependent upon the deceased father who was admittedly an employee of C.C.L. and died in harness. Learned counsel further submits that the matter has been set at rest by this Hon'ble Court in catena of decisions and it has been categorically held that denial of employment on compassionate ground to a daughter is unconstitutional and that being so provision of N.C.W.A. as contained in Clause 9.5.0 III is also unconstitutional. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that age of the petitioner on the date of death of her father was 12 years and as she was minor which is evident from the birth certificate and school transfer certificate and as per the provision one post ought to have been kept in live roster and appointment should have been offered when she attained majority as per rule 9.5.0 of NC.W.A. Learned counsel vehemently argues that in view of several decisions of this Court, the impugned letter dated 29.11.2013 denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is female, is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submits that gender discrimination is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that gender discrimination is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that rules prevalent on the date when application is considered are to be applied and not the rules prevalent on the date when application is made, the question of limitation regarding application of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment ought to have been considered by the respondent in the light of its own circular of 2011. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhaiya Vishweajet Kumar vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is fully justified and petitioner is not liable for compassionate appointment as his case is barred by limitation as well as the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 N.C.W.A. are not attracted in the instant case. Referring to several Paragraphs of the counter affidavit the respondent counsel demonstrates that on the date of death the petitioner though being female dependent was not 12 years and above and as such either for keeping her name in live roster or for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment on her attaining age of 18 years does not arise and as such she cannot claim for appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of 18 years. The learned counsel submits that this Hon'ble Court has held that the cases of compassionate appointment or such social security measures are to be considered as per the scheme or agreement entered between the Management and Workmen, especially in Industrial Undertaking like respondent-C.C.L. The scheme does not permit the minor below 12 years of age for being kept in live roster. The denial of petitioner's claim cannot be said to suffer from legal infirmity and violation of laid provision of N.C.W.A. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that the present case exposes the prevalence of gender inequality in Coal India which compels one to contemplate whether the fundamental conception of gender empowerment and gender justice have been given effect to despite a number of legislations and judicial pronouncements. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that the present case exposes the prevalence of gender inequality in Coal India which compels one to contemplate whether the fundamental conception of gender empowerment and gender justice have been given effect to despite a number of legislations and judicial pronouncements. It appears that though there has been formal removal of institutionalized discrimination, yet the mind set and the attitude ingrained in the subconscious have not been erased. Women still face all kinds of discrimination and prejudice. The case of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of Rule 9.5.0 III of N.C.W.A. which reads as under:- (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 dependent 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 dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. 6. From perusal of Clause (i) of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a female dependent irrespective of the age have the option either to accept monitory compensation per month or employment irrespective of her age. Nowhere it is provided that a female dependent less than 12 years of her age will not be kept in the live roster and would not be provided employment on compassionate ground or payment of compensation. Even assuming that provision by implication is there, that would be wholly unconstitutional. Admittedly, the petitioner applied immediately after the death i.e. on 12.01.2008 stating that she is minor and admittedly she was above 12 years of age on the date of death of her father i.e. 12.01.2008 and she was born on 20.12.1991 which finds support from the birth certificate and the School Leaving Certificate which has not been controverted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. The petitioner being the female cannot be deprived from the benefit provided under N.C.W.A. VI. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable by this Court. The petitioner being the female cannot be deprived from the benefit provided under N.C.W.A. VI. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable by this Court. Relying on the date of birth as mentioned in service excerpts which does not find support from any documents no imaginary date of birth can be taken into account by the respondent. The date of birth as contemplated in the birth certificate which has been issued by the competent authority of the State Government and the School Leaving Certificate which shows the entry of the petitioner in the school much prior to date of death, has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit and as such it cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, factually the stand of the respondent is incorrect and the order of rejection is wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Regarding the limitation, the stand of the respondents is also misconceived. It is settled principle of law that the rules prevalent on the date when application is considered are to be applied not the rules prevalent on the date when application is made, the question of limitation regarding application of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment ought to have been considered by the respondents in the light of Circular dated 2011. Thus, the petitioner applied within time and as such rejection on the ground of limitation is also arbitrary and has been done with malafide intention. The provisions of Clause 9.5.0 III of N.C.W.A. is unconstitutional and hence is fit to be quashed and set aside as it smacks of gender discrimination. It is the duty of the State to make all the efforts to frame such policy so that men and women are treated equally. They can have the rights and means of livelihood and no room is allowed to conceive any gender bias. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charu Khurana & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 192 at Para 37 held:- 37. Having referred to the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, and taking note of the submissions, we may presently refer to Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law, or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Having referred to the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution, and taking note of the submissions, we may presently refer to Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law, or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 19(1)(g) provides that all citizens have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Needless to emphasize that the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions to be imposed, as permissible under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Article 21 deals with the concept of life, which has been extended to a great extent by this Court. 41. The aforesaid pronouncements clearly spells out that there cannot be any discrimination solely on the ground of gender. It is apt to note here that reservation of seats for women in panchayats and municipalities have been provided under Articles 243(d) and 243(t) of the Constitution of India. The purpose of the constitutional amendment is that the women in India are required to participate more in a democratic setup especially at the grass root level. This is an affirmative step in the realm of women empowerment. The 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution which deal with the reservation of women has the avowed purpose, that is, the women should become parties in the decision making process in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law. Their active participation in the decision making process has been accentuated upon and the secondary role which was historically given to women has been sought to be metamorphosed to the primary one. The sustenance of gender justice is the cultivated achievement of intrinsic human rights. Equality cannot be achieve unless there are equal opportunities and if a woman is debarred at the threshold to enter into the sphere of procession for which she is eligible and qualified, it is well-nigh impossible to conceive of equality. It also clips her capacity to earn her livelihood which affects her individual dignity. 7. The Constitution of India accords socio economic and political justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of person with stated freedoms. Article 14 guarantees equality. In other words frowns upon discrimination on any ground. It also clips her capacity to earn her livelihood which affects her individual dignity. 7. The Constitution of India accords socio economic and political justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of person with stated freedoms. Article 14 guarantees equality. In other words frowns upon discrimination on any ground. Article 15(1) abolishes discrimination and removed disability, liability or restriction on the grounds of sex and ensures equality of status. Article 29(2) gives equal right to education. Article 16(1) accords equality of opportunity in public service for an appointment or employment to an office or post under the State and prohibits gender discrimination. Article 15(3) treats women as a class, mitigates the rigour of absolute equality enshrined in Article 14 and its species Article 15(1) and 16(1) and enjoins the State to make any special provision to remedy past injustice and to advance their status, socio economic and political. Women should have adequate means of livelihood on par with men. 8. In case of C.B. Muthamma Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1979 SCC (4) 260 their Lordship held at Para 16 : “If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman's thraldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India's humanity, viz, our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Constitution in the book and Law in Action. And if the Executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of Part III, especially when high political office, even diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable.” 9. This Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.405 of 5004; Roshaliya Kindo Vs. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. and affirmed in L.P.A. No.262 of 2004 and W.P.(S) No.4001 of 2008; Radha Munda Vs. Director Personnel, Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. reiterated the same view that employment cannot be deprived and discriminated only because of the fact that she is a female dependent. 10. Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. and affirmed in L.P.A. No.262 of 2004 and W.P.(S) No.4001 of 2008; Radha Munda Vs. Director Personnel, Central Coalfield Ltd. & Ors. reiterated the same view that employment cannot be deprived and discriminated only because of the fact that she is a female dependent. 10. Taking into consideration the factual as well as legal aspects as depicted above, this Court is constrained to take a similar view to hold that the impugned order dated 29.11.2013 is against the settled principle of law. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and settled principles of law, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 who shall take a fresh decision in the light of the aforesaid observation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by passing reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 29.11.2013 is against the settled principle of law and therefore is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the writ application stands allowed. Needless to say the respondents after taking a decision within the aforesaid period shall take immediate steps preferably within the period of further four weeks to offer appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with law.