ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27/28.7.2017 as contained in Reference No. GM(P)/MP/9.3.0/B.Sayal/2017/2041, by which, the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent authorities. 2. Navneet Kumar, the elder brother of the petitioner, was appointed on compassionate ground as his father, who also is the father of this petitioner, died in harness. Said Navneet Kumar also died in harness on 26.2.2016 leaving behind his mother-Nira Devi, two sisters, namely Poonam Kumari and Sunita Kumari and his younger brother i.e. the petitioner. Both sisters are married. This petitioner, as he claims to be a dependent upon the deceased, filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement, which guides this issue. The application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27/28.7.2017. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order and prayed to appoint him on compassionate ground. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Central Coalfields Limited in support of the rejection order. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is absolutely bad. He further submits that on erroneous consideration, the respondents came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a dependent of the deceased and on this ground only, they have rejected the claim of the petitioner, which could not have been. He also submits that the documents of the respondents itself show that the petitioner was a dependent of the deceased brother and when the documents of the respondent authority itself suggest that the petitioner is a dependent upon the deceased, the order impugned, on the face of it, is absolutely bad. He further submits that the order impugned be set aside and the petitioner must be given offer of appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner produced his Aadhar Card and other documents, by which, it appears that the petitioner is not residing with the deceased brother and he did his schooling from Palamau therefore, his claim has not been considered treating him not to be dependent upon the deceased. 7. It is admitted fact that the elder brother of this petitioner died in harness on 26.2.2016. 7. It is admitted fact that the elder brother of this petitioner died in harness on 26.2.2016. It is also admitted that this petitioner applied for compassionate appointment but the said application was rejected. It is also admitted from the record that the elder brother Navneet Kumar was unmarried, died leaving behind his mother, this petitioner and two married sisters. The two married sisters of the deceased as they are married, cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. The mother was definitely dependent upon the deceased but because of her age, she did not qualify to be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, the petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment through his mother. 8. The claim of compassionate appointment of CCL is guided by National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA), which is an agreement between the Coal Company and the Union of Workmen. As per the provision of NCWA, a dependent is entitled to get compassionate appointment. A dependent as per NCWA means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, younger brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter in-law or son in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependents of the deceased. 9. In this case, the petitioner is an indirect dependent (as per NCWA) being the brother of the deceased. As per NCWA, if no direct dependent is available for grant of compassionate appointment, the case of indirect dependent is considered. In the instant case, the mother being the direct dependent was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. As there was no other direct dependent, the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment through his mother, but his claim was rejected treating him not a dependent of the deceased because of the reason that the address of the petitioner in Voter I.Card and Aadhar Card is different with the address of the deceased and he got his education from some different place. 10. Each employee of CCL has a service book opened in his name. The case, in hand, the service book of the deceased employee was opened and bears Sl. No. 5360. Column 16 of the said service book contains the details of the deceased employee. 10. Each employee of CCL has a service book opened in his name. The case, in hand, the service book of the deceased employee was opened and bears Sl. No. 5360. Column 16 of the said service book contains the details of the deceased employee. The name of the petitioner appears as one of the dependents of the deceased-Navneet Kumar. Further, I find that an office order was issued on 25.5.2016 by which, the name of the deceased Navneet Kumar has been struck off from the Roll of the Company with effect from 26.2.2016. The said Office Order also contains the name of Jintendra Kumar Pandey, i.e. the petitioner as one of the dependents of the deceased. Further, a four-men-committee comprising of senior officials of CCL conducted an enquiry in respect of dependency of this petitioner. The said committee submitted its report dated 6.12.2016, which clearly suggests that this petitioner is dependent upon the deceased-Navneet Kumar and was residing with the deceased. The claim of the respondent authorities that the Voter I.Card and Aadhar Card of the petitioner do not depict the same address as that of the deceased, cannot be accepted. The conclusion arrived at by the respondent authorities basing on this point that the petitioner was not wholly dependent upon the deceased, is also not acceptable. For the purpose of education, the petitioner might have resided temporarily at Palamau, which cannot be a conclusive proof that the petitioner was not dependent on the deceased. 11. So far as dependency of the petitioner is concerned, there are several documents of the respondent authorities (as mentioned above) which clearly prove and suggest that the petitioner was a dependent upon the deceased. The petitioner has pleaded and came up with documents of the respondents to prove that the petitioner was a dependent of the deceased. When the petitioner asserts his dependency, then the onus will shift upon the respondent authorities to prove that he was not a dependent on the deceased, which the respondent authorities have failed to prove. No where the respondent CCL has ever pleaded or submitted that the petitioner is working and is independent in earning. Moreover, the report of the four-men-committee of the CCL also suggests that the petitioner was a dependent of the deceased. This report is a conclusive proof on the fat of dependency of the petitioner upon the deceased. 12. No where the respondent CCL has ever pleaded or submitted that the petitioner is working and is independent in earning. Moreover, the report of the four-men-committee of the CCL also suggests that the petitioner was a dependent of the deceased. This report is a conclusive proof on the fat of dependency of the petitioner upon the deceased. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 27/28.7.2017 passed by the Sr. Manager (P) MP by which, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected is absolutely bad and the same cannot be sustained. The petitioner being the dependent of the deceased is entitled to be appointed by CCL on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. 13. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to issue offer of appointment to the petitioner within four weeks from today. 14. This writ petition stands allowed, accordingly.