JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Letter dated 21.11.2013 issued by the Welfare Officer (T), Kedla Opencast Project, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been informed that her application for compassionate employment has not been considered by the Competent Authorities of Central Coalfields Limited. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the age of the petitioner for compassionate appointment according to the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of petitioner Jhari Mahto died in harness on 27.10.2008 during treatment at RIIMS while he was in employment under the Central Coalfields Limited Kedla OC Project. Subsequently, the brother of the petitioner namely, Mohar Lal Mahto applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2008 within time. But unfortunately, after submission of application for compassionate appointment, the brother of the petitioner met with a road accident and died on 12.12.2009. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the death of the brother of the petitioner, his brother namely Raghunath Mahto submitted an application on 03.04.2010 to the Project Officer, Kedla OCP and requested to provide compassionate appointment to his sister namely Sushma Kumari, who is petitioner in the instant case narrating the fact that his brother namely Mohar Lal Mahto has died in a road accident. The petitioner further submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 08.04.2013 before the respondents stating therein that earlier also application was submitted by her but the same was not accepted as she was less than 18 years old during the relevant time. The petitioner further requested that she is now crossed the age of 18 years, so her case may be considered for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, she received letter No. PO (K)/PS/9.3.0/2013/1747 dated 21.11.2013 of Welfare Officer (T), Kedla OCP, whereby her case for compassionate appointment was not considered under Para 9.3.0 by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Lallan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased father, who was admittedly an employee of CCL and died in harness. Thereafter, she was dependent upon the deceased brother, who died in a road accident. 3. Mr. Lallan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased father, who was admittedly an employee of CCL and died in harness. Thereafter, she was dependent upon the deceased brother, who died in a road accident. Learned counsel further submits that unmarried daughter also comes within the definition of the dependent and compassionate appointment has to be provided to unmarried daughter as per the provisions of NCWA-IV, para 9.4.0, 9.4.1, 9.4.2 sub Para (i) and (II) and as such, the action of the respondents, rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in case of Prem Ful Kumari Vs. Central Coalfields Limited, reported in 2017 SCC Online Jhr 1094 and in view of the judgment/order of this Court, the impugned letter dated 21.11.2013 denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is a female, is fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after death of her father namely late Jhari Mahto, his nominee namely Moharlal Mahto, brother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 26.12.2008 but unfortunately he died in a road accident before his claim for compassionate appointment could be finalized. Thereafter, his sister namely, Sushma Kumari, petitioners aged about 14 years and 06 months as on date of death of deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment on 8.04.2013. Thereafter, his sister namely, Sushma Kumari, petitioners aged about 14 years and 06 months as on date of death of deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment on 8.04.2013. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased employee, father of the petitioner had declared on 24.06.1998 the name and age of the petitioner in the pension form PS-3 as Sushma Kumari, date of brith as 01.04.1994 meaning thereby she was 14 years 06 months and 26 days on the date of death of her father on 27.10.2008 and as per agreement made in NCWA between the management and Trade Union for compassionate appointment, no employment will be offered to dependent, who is less than 18 years of age and only male dependents aged 12 years or more and below 18 years can be kept in live roaster and as such, the petitioner being a female dependent and aged below 18 years is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Justifying the impugned letter, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned letter. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a judgment of this Court in case of Thomos Purti Vs. CCL {W.P.(S) No.4183 of 2014}, wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment is not transferable right and as such, in the instant case, elder brother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment earlier and now petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was employee of CCL and died in harness and thereafter, the brother of the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment, but before the same could be finalized, he met with an accident and died and as such, it was only due to the prevailing situation, the petitioner came into picture and requested for compassionate appointment as she was wholly dependent on her deceased father and brother, same cannot be brushed aside on the ground of transfer of right. As the petitioner fulfills all the requirement for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment as envisaged in Clause 9.4.2 that unmarried daughters are also entitled for compassionate appointment and considering the sympathetic situation of the petitioner due to certain deaths i.e. her father and brother, it is a fit case in which the respondent should consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and guidelines, the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, within a period of ten weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed.