JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, the learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 22/27.08.2016 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been declined. 3. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the decision on compassionate appointment to the petitioner, which was kept in abeyance in view of pendency of Reference No. 253 of 2000, after the aforesaid industrial dispute ended in "No Dispute Award" stands revived. 4. Briefly stated, father of the petitioner who was working as Peon under the respondent-M/s BCCL died in harness on 12.09.1997 and his mother who had crossed 45 years of age was offered monetary compensation. On the representation of the petitioner''s mother through letter dated 14.07.1998 he was kept on live-roster and on attaining the age of majority he was offered appointment letter dated 11/14.05.2002 for the post of UG General Majdoor in Cat-I, however, in view of the industrial dispute raised by his step-brother namely, Ram Swarup Ram vide Reference No. 253 of 2000 his appointment was kept in abeyance. The petitioner''s mother who was initially not impleaded in Reference No. 253 of 2000 was impleaded in the said case by virtue of order dated 02.05.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3723 of 2006. Finally, a "No Dispute Award" dated 12.08.2014 was passed in Reference No. 253 of 2000. Now, the petitioner comes to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3778 of 2016 for a direction upon the respondent-M/s BCCL to revive the letter of appointment dated 11/14.05.2002. The writ petition stood disposed of by an order dated 19.07.2016 with a direction to the respondent-authority to take a decision in the matter. In purported compliance of this order the impugned order dated 22/27.08.2016 has been passed. 5. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding indicate that age of mother of the petitioner was assessed on 08.12.1998 and in terms thereof monetary compensation was payable to her till 07.12.2010. It is not in dispute that the decision reflected in letter dated 01.08.2002, by which the petitioner''s appointment on compassionate grounds was kept in abeyance, was not challenged by the petitioner. During pendency of Reference No. 253 of 2000 his mother has attained the age of superannuation. It is not in dispute that the decision reflected in letter dated 01.08.2002, by which the petitioner''s appointment on compassionate grounds was kept in abeyance, was not challenged by the petitioner. During pendency of Reference No. 253 of 2000 his mother has attained the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that after a decision was taken to keep the appointment letter dated 11/14.05.2002 in abeyance, the petitioner''s mother was paid monetary compensation; may be for a brief period she was not paid monetary compensation. 6. Under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-V monetary compensation is paid to a female dependent of the deceased employee if she has crossed the age of 45 years and a male dependent is kept on live-roster till he attains the age of majority. And, if an application is submitted for compassionate appointment to the male dependent after he attains the age of majority, if appointment is offered, monetary compensation to the female dependent is stopped by the employer. However, after the female dependent has ceased to have a right to claim monetary compensation, compassionate appointment to the male dependent in lieu of monetary compensation cannot be claimed. 7. In the above facts, since during pendency of the Reference No. 253 of 2000 mother of the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained and it has rightly been rejected. 8. In the above facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 22/27.08.2016 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of the stand taken by the respondent-M/s BCCL in the counter-affidavit, part of monetary compensation, if any, which has not been paid to her, shall be paid to the petitioner''s mother. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed.