JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay monetary compensation under para 9.3.0 of NCWA w.e.f the date of death of her husband and pay the arrears of compensation as also month to month monetary compensation. 2. The facts, in brief, is that husband of the petitioner, namely, Parmeshwar Yadav was a regular employee in the respondents-company and died in harness on 21.12.2001 leaving behind his wife and daughter. It is averred that immediately after the death of her husband, the present petitioner made an application for employment under 9.3.2 of the NCWA, whereupon after going through other formalities, she was referred to Apex Medical Board for assessment of her age, where her age was determined as 52 ½ years as on 12.11.2003. For the reasons aforesaid, vide letter dated 28.01.2004, she was communicated that her age comes to more than about 51 years of age on the death of her husband, hence she is not eligible for employment, however, she may apply for monetary compensation. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner made a request vide letter dated 21.06.2004 for monetary compensation and thereafter also submitted several representations to pass necessary order for making monetary compensation, but, it did not evoke any response. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement specifically provides employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workman who die while in service. Initially, employment of the petitioner was denied as she was about 51 years of age at the time of death of her husband, but she was advised to apply for monetary compensation, even then also they lingered the matter. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Sitwa Devi Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 3181 of 2008, wherein this Court after elaborate discussions given directions for monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband. 4. In support of her argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dukhni Devi Vs. BCCL & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 3181 of 2008, wherein this Court after elaborate discussions given directions for monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband. 4. In support of her argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dukhni Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors as reported in 2013(4) JLJR 571 wherein also it has been held that petitioner-widow is entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband i.e. 1997 even though she applied the same in the 2010 and case of the present petitioner stands on better footing. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that initially the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment stating her age to be 44 years but from the records available with the respondents-company, it transpired that there was variations in her age, which necessitated the respondents to constitute a Medical Board, and her age was assessed as 52 and ½ years and her date of birth to be 12.05.1951, hence she was denied compassionate appointment and was advised to apply for monetary compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under prescribed format for monetary compensation only on 03.03.2008 and from that date she has been paid monetary compensation till she attained the age of 60 years 11.05.2011; hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i).Admittedly, immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was denied on the ground that petitioner is over-age. However, immediately thereafter, she applied for monetary compensation, to which, she is entitled to, there is no dispute or debate on this point. The only dispute is from which date the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit. However, immediately thereafter, she applied for monetary compensation, to which, she is entitled to, there is no dispute or debate on this point. The only dispute is from which date the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit. (ii).From plain reading of Para 9.5.0 of Chapter IX “Social Security” of NCWA Act, which speaks about ‘Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant, it transpires that it nowhere speaks about the date from which the petitioner is entitled to get the same benefit or there is no any other clause describing date of entitlement or there is no chit of paper or NCWA, which suggests that the petitioner is entitled to get monetary benefit from the date which she submitted required document. (iii).More or less, similar issue has been raised in Dukhni Devi (supra) and Sitwa Devi (supra), wherein this Court has elaborately dealt with the issue and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the proposition laid down in those cases. 7. As a logical sequiter to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to pay the unpaid monetary compensation, as per the scheme floated under 9.5.0 of NCWA, i.e. from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner till the date of her entitlement within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.