ORDER : WPS 5183/2017 Petitioner Subsiya Devi is the widow of the deceased employee who has sought quashing of the order dated 10.08.2017 (Annexure-9) by which the application for appointment of her married daughter Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari on compassionate ground, was rejected. 2. Petitioner has contended that out of three children born out of the wedlock with late employee, son had died earlier and out of two married daughters i.e. Sunita Kumari @ Sunita Devi and Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi, it is the elder daughter Sunita Kumari who is living with her and looking after her and is also dependent upon the petitioner. Therefore, she is entitled to compassionate appointment in lieu of her husband’s death in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. Her claim has been rejected by order at Annexure-9 dated 10.08.2017 on the ground that the applicant being one of the two married daughters of the deceased employee, is not directly dependent upon the deceased in terms of provisions of NCWA and therefore, cannot be appointed. Petitioner was advised to apply for monetary compensation. 3. In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, the impugned decision has been defended on the same ground. WPS 2662/2016 4. Petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee who died in harness on 13.02.2015 while working as Pump Operator in Bera Colliery under BCCL. She seeks compassionate appointment of her daughter Meena Kumar Maji in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. 5. Respondents in their counter affidavit have contested the claim of the petitioner on the same ground that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of ‘dependent’ for the purposes of claiming appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner withdrew application for monetary compensation by letter 07.12.2015. WPS 3338/2016 6. Petitioner Rekha Kumari, a married daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness on 20.10.2002 while working as Wagon Loader in Bhurkunda Colliery of CCL, has approached this Court for compassionate appointment on the death of his father. After obtaining succession certificate on 17.01.2015 where she was declared sole successor of the late employee, she pursued her claim. 7. As per Respondents, petitioner’s case was examined by the committee vide Annexure-B dated 03.03.2017. On inquiry, it was found that she was in live-in-relationship with one Budhan Bhuiyan and having two children. Budhan Bhuiyan died four months back. After obtaining succession certificate on 17.01.2015 where she was declared sole successor of the late employee, she pursued her claim. 7. As per Respondents, petitioner’s case was examined by the committee vide Annexure-B dated 03.03.2017. On inquiry, it was found that she was in live-in-relationship with one Budhan Bhuiyan and having two children. Budhan Bhuiyan died four months back. By order at Annexure-D dated 08.03.2017, her claim was rejected as she does not fall in the category of unmarried daughter in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. WPS 6383/2008 8. Petitioner Meera Devi is the daughter of the deceased employee late Charki Desin. She has sought compassionate appointment on the ground of death of her mother, who died in harness while working as Female Guard in Keshalpur Colliery of BCCL. According to the petitioner, deceased left behind three daughters. Father of the petitioner pre-deceased her and the petitioner was only major daughter eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Her claim has been contested by the Respondent through their counter affidavit both on the grounds of delay of 11 years and also that the petitioner is a married daughter living with her husband and therefore, not entitled to compassionate appointment as she was not dependent upon the deceased employee. Counsel for the Respondent has referred to the statement made at paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit that the deceased also has a step son. 10. Counsel for the parties have produced the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 196/2017 dated 16.08.2018 in the case of Central Coalfields Limited versus Hemanti Devi & others, wherein it has been held as under : “In this background, in our opinion, the clause 9.3.3 has to be construed to include married dependant daughter also. We are conscious of the fact that before us, vires of the aforesaid clause of the NCWA has not been challenged and what we are dealing with in this appeal is a industry-wide agreement and not a direct statutory provision. But the employer in this appeal is a public sector unit coming within the ambit of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, since the agreement directly deals with matters of employment, the said provision has to meet the tests of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But the employer in this appeal is a public sector unit coming within the ambit of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, since the agreement directly deals with matters of employment, the said provision has to meet the tests of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The manner in which the appellant wants the aforesaid provision to be interpreted would render it invalid as there can be no justification for not qualifying the son’s eligibility on the basis of marital status whereas a daughter has been placed under restriction on that count. Such discrimination is not based on any reasonable or rational criteria. We have to read down the expression “unmarried” qualifying the expression daughter as a non-essential component of the aforesaid clause and this interpretation would otherwise save the said provision. We accordingly sustain the decision which is appealed against. We, however, make it clear that the authority, taking decision on the basis of the direction of the learned First Court, should ascertain, upon giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing, that she was dependent on her mother’s income at the time of her mother’s death and at present does not have sufficient means to run her household irrespective of the fact as to whether she was married or not. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. As we disposed of the main appeal, the connected application (I.A Nos.1437/18) shall stand disposed of.” 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent Coal Companies submit that the learned Division Bench by the instant judgment has read down the expression ‘unmarried daughter’ in the manner that the expression ‘unmarried’ is non-essential component of the aforesaid clause. This disqualification for eligibility on the ground of marital status has been held to be discriminatory in comparison to the eligibility of a married son for such compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.0. Learned counsel for the Respondent Coal Companies submit that the individual cases need to be re-examined in the light of the ratio rendered in the case of Hemanti Devi (Supra). Learned counsel Mr. Mehta, representing BCCL, has made categorical reference to other provisions under Clause 9.3.4 which require other eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by any such applicant such as age and suitability to the appointment. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta, representing BCCL, has made categorical reference to other provisions under Clause 9.3.4 which require other eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by any such applicant such as age and suitability to the appointment. Individual applicants would also be required to establish that she was wholly dependent on the deceased employee. This aspect has also been taken note by the learned Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 12. Considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant material facts borne out from the records, noted above and also judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Hemanti Devi (Supra). Apart from other relevant material facts of each such petitioner, the common thread in all these writ petitions is that the claim for compassionate appointment is being made in respect of a married daughter. Respondent have, in one or the other writ petitions, either rejected the claim or contested it on the ground that a married daughter is not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. In the light of ratio rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemanti Devi (Supra), claim of the individual petitioners needs to be re-examined by the Respondent Coal Companies. This Court however does not express any opinion in respect of factual matrix of the individual cases as the employer has to scrutinize the individual claims in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA, as interpreted by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemanti Devi (Supra). Impugned orders in the respective writ petitions are quashed. Matter is remanded to the competent authority of the Respondent Coal Companies for reconsideration of the claim of the individual petitioners. Let this exercise be completed within a reasonable time, preferably ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitions are allowed in the manner and to the extent indicate herein-above.