JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, CJ. I.A. No. 1158 of 2018 This is an application for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. Upon going through the application, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed time. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 1158 of 2018 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 43 of 2018 The present appeal is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing appointment on compassionate ground to respondent no. 2-Sudarsan Routh @ Rauth. The first respondent-Devki Routh @ Raut is the widow of a deceased employee of the first appellant who had passed away while in service on 5th May, 2008. The respondent no. 2 admittedly is the brother of the deceased employee. In service excerpts of the latter, however, he was shown as his son. At the time of preparation of the L.T.C. form the age of the respondent no. 2 was shown as six years. The respondent no. 1 had submitted an application for compassionate appointment of the respondent no. 2 claiming him to be her son. On enquiry, however, it was found that the respondent no. 2 in fact was her brother-in-law, being the brother of the deceased employee. Before the Enquiring Authority a “Sada” Adoption Deed was produced to show that the first respondent was adopted by the deceased employee as his son. The application for appointment on compassionate ground, however, was rejected because of suppression of material fact. The learned First Court, however, allowed the plea for appointment from that category, holding inter alia:- “5.The plea, that the petitioner no.1 submitted application for compassionate appointment on a false plea showing petitioner no.2 as her son and on that ground alone the application was liable to be rejected, in the above facts does not survive. It was not an act of petitioner no.2 nor he could have played any role when he was described as son of the deceased employee. The service excerpt could not have been prepared with the consent of petitioner no.2, who was aged only about six years at that time. For a mistake committed by the employee during his lifetime, claim for compassionate appointment, in my opinion, cannot be declined. The service excerpt could not have been prepared with the consent of petitioner no.2, who was aged only about six years at that time. For a mistake committed by the employee during his lifetime, claim for compassionate appointment, in my opinion, cannot be declined. No doubt, petitioner no.1 had knowledge of the real fact which she accepted before the committee, but when status of petitioner no.2 was ascertained, application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground of raising a false plea. Actual fact was ascertained before a decision in the matter was taken. Insofar as, genuineness of Sada adoption deed is concerned, claim of the petitioner has not been declined on the ground that it is a forged and fabricated document. Once it is admitted that petitioner no.2 is brother of the deceased employee, this deed of adoption looses relevance. Under the scheme, a brother can also lay a claim for compassionate appointment. Reliance on decision in “Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Vs. Chhathu Ram and Ors.” reported in (1999) 5 SCC 673 does not lend support to the impugned order dated 27.07.2016. In the said case, High Court proceeded in the matter on a presumption that adoption deed produced by dependant of the deceased employee was genuine. Holding that presumption under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not attracted in the case, the Supreme Court found the order granting compassionate appointment unsustainable. Facts pleaded in the present case are entirely different from the facts in Chhathu Ram case. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the respondent M/s CCL has tried to contend that petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased employee could not have adopted petitioner no.2 as her son and, thus, claim for compassionate appointment is a claim based on a forged document. As noticed above, it is not a finding recorded by the respondent authority that Sada adoption deed dated 15.07.1989 is a forged deed, and it has not been shown that, in law, such adoption is not permissible. Petitioner no.2 was brought up by petitioner no.1 and her husband just like their son, as would appear from the service record of the deceased employee. 6. Another ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is, that petitioner no.2 was not wholly dependant on the deceased employee. Petitioner no.2 was brought up by petitioner no.1 and her husband just like their son, as would appear from the service record of the deceased employee. 6. Another ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is, that petitioner no.2 was not wholly dependant on the deceased employee. The fact that from his very infancy, petitioner no.2 was staying with the employee, a fact recorded in the year, 1987, amply demonstrates that petitioner no.2 was wholly dependant on the employee. The respondent authority, taking note of the statement of petitioner no.1 that she is dependant on petitioner no.2, has arrived at the conclusion that petitioner no.2 was not wholly dependant on the employee. This is an error committed by the respondent authority. For seeking compassionate appointment, a widow who has no son or daughter would obviously write that she is dependant on petitioner no.2, who if granted compassionate appointment, would take care of her. Strangely enough, while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment the respondent authority has held that when petitioner no.1 herself can lay a claim for compassionate appointment under the provisions of NCWA, claim on behalf of the respondent no.2 cannot be entertained. This is in ignorance of the fact that admittedly at the time of the death of her husband, petitioner no.1 had crossed the age of 45 years. An enquiry report was submitted on 05.12.2008, however, the respondent M/s CCL did not inform her or rejected application dated 23.06.2008 on the ground that claim for compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 is not maintainable. Had this course of action been adopted by the respondents, petitioner no.1 would have taken appropriate steps in the matter. The respondents never offered monetary compensation, to which she was entitled from one month after the date of application, that is, 23.06.2008. And, it would be appropriate to note that provision for monetary compensation under NCWA is optional for the female dependant of the deceased employee and on grant of compassionate appointment to the male dependant, it is discontinued. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 is found unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Within six weeks, the respondents shall issue notice to petitioner no.2 for producing necessary documents and for medical examination, for his appointment.” 2. This judgment is under challenge before us. 3. Mr. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 is found unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Within six weeks, the respondents shall issue notice to petitioner no.2 for producing necessary documents and for medical examination, for his appointment.” 2. This judgment is under challenge before us. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that under Chapter-IX of the applicable National Coal Wage Agreement, which deals with social security, in the event an employee dies while in service his widow is entitled to compassionate appointment if she is below 45 years of age. But if she is beyond that age, she is entitled to monetary compensation only. In this case, according to him, the respondent no. 1, being the widow of the deceased employee never asked for monetary compensation. The appellant’s stand in such circumstances is that an indirect dependant would not be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Clause 9.3.3 of the aforesaid Chapter of N.C.W.A. lists the dependants who could be given compassionate appointment. It categorises dependants under two heads. The first is direct dependant which includes wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. It also stipulates that if no such direct dependant is available for employment, then brother, widowed daughter/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 dependant of the deceased. The respondent no. 2, as an indirect dependant thus was otherwise eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Now the question arises as to whether entitlement of monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased disentitled altogether the indirect dependants from the benefits of compassionate appointment. For this purpose, we reproduce below the relevant clause of NCWA:- “9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be dependant of the deceased.” 4. It would appear from a plain reading of the said clause that if no direct dependant is available for employment in such cases indirect dependant specified therein can be considered for compassionate appointment. It would appear from a plain reading of the said clause that if no direct dependant is available for employment in such cases indirect dependant specified therein can be considered for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the widow of the deceased admittedly at the time of her death had crossed the age of 45 years. Thus, she became entitled to monetary compensation. She was not entitled to employment on compassionate ground as per Clause 9.5.0 of the said N.C.W.A., which stipulates:- “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under: (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/-per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female depandant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. (v) the existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised. Note: In the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at bipartite level.” 5. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. (v) the existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised. Note: In the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at bipartite level.” 5. The said clause in substance stipulates that in the event no direct dependant is available for employment then the other indirect dependants would be entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. In our opinion, there is difference between employment and monetary compensation as means of relief to the dependants of deceased employee under the aforesaid NCWA and in this case the widow of the deceased not being entitled to direct employment on compassionate ground the respondent no. 2 otherwise became entitled to be considered for appointment to that post. We concur with the opinion of the learned First Court that the recordal of respondent no. 2 as son of the deceased employee in his service excerpts would not by virtue of that fact alone disentitle him for getting the benefit to be considered for compassionate appointment once he otherwise fulfills the criteria of indirect dependants. The learned First Court has also found that “Sada” Adoption Deed was never rejected. We are of the opinion that his right to claim employment came as brother of the deceased workman and he ought to be considered as such. But there is further qualification for indirect relatives to be considered for employment on compassionate ground. Such relatives would have to be almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased. The learned First Court has given the finding in favour of the second respondent on that count. Our view on this point however is that the appellant ought to be given an opportunity to examine this aspect once more. We do not agree with the reasoning of the learned First Court on which it has come to a finding that the second respondent was dependant on the deceased employee. Such finding is based on strong undercurrent of presumption. We hold that the respondent no. 2 would be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground provided that factor is found satisfied. 6. Such finding is based on strong undercurrent of presumption. We hold that the respondent no. 2 would be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground provided that factor is found satisfied. 6. We accordingly modify the judgment under appeal and remit the matter to the General Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relation), Central Coalfields Limited for deciding as to whether at the time of death of the deceased employee, the respondent no. 2 was almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased or not. If it is found that he was almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased then he shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the applicable N.C.W.A. 7. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of communication of this order, upon giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 8. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms without any order as to costs. 9. Connected application (I.A. No.1157 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of, as we have disposed of the main appeal.