JUDGMENT : I.A.No.994 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 112 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.994 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 112 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.61 of 2019 This instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.4802 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder, the direction has been passed upon the respondent no.4-Project Officer, Kuju Siding to ensure deduction to the extent of 25 per cent from the salary of the respondent no.6 is affected and the amount is transmitted into the bank account of the writ petitioner, of which she shall furnish the details within a period of four weeks. 2. The brief facts of the case requires to be enumerated which is necessary for the lis reads as hereunder:- The writ petitioner who is daughter-in-law of late Raghunath Karmali, who was an employee of Kuju Siding and while working as Piece Rated Worker died on 10.07.2014 and after his death, the wife of the deceased employee Kachho Devi submitted a representation on 05.11.2014 requesting for providing compassionate appointment to her son Chhotelal Karmali, appellant herein. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has sought for a direction for payment of monetary benefits and compassionate appointment to her. But before that, the writ petition was filed, compassionate appointment to Chhotelal Karmali his brother-in-law-respondent no.6 was granted through appointment letter dated 25.06.2015. However, respondent no.6 has given an undertaking on 02.01.2015 that he shall look after and support other family members who were dependants on his father; one of the dependants is the widow daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, the petitioner before the writ Court. However, respondent no.6 has given an undertaking on 02.01.2015 that he shall look after and support other family members who were dependants on his father; one of the dependants is the widow daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, the petitioner before the writ Court. The writ petitioner, however, has made grievance before the authority that she was not being looked after by the respondent no.6, therefore, she sought for monetary benefits on the ground that the respondent no.6 is deviating from the undertaking dated 02.01.2015 to the extent to support other family members who were dependants on his father but the grievance having not been redressed, she preferred writ petition before the writ Court, which got disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2018 and is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal, wherein the learned Single Judge has ordered to the Project Officer, Kuju Siding to ensure that deduction to the extent of 25 per cent from the salary of the respondent no.6 is affected and the amount is transmitted into the bank account of the writ petitioner, of which she shall furnish the details within a period of four weeks. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-respondent no.6 has submitted by assailing the impugned order, inter-alia on the ground that it is the writ petitioner who has left the house even though the appellant is ready to keep her in the residence of the deceased employee but she is not ready to remain with the family members of the deceased employee. It has further been argued that the appellant to look after his widow mother, one widow sister along with her children and his wife and the children but due to deduction of 25 per cent from the salary for no fault on his own, he is facing financial crunch, which in consequence thereof, is not in a position to maintain other family members. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated these aspects of the matter. 4. Mr. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated these aspects of the matter. 4. Mr. Akchansh Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-writ petitioner, has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that in pursuance to the undertaking dated 02.01.2015 furnished by the appellant, she was required to be looked after by him but due to negligence in looking after her and her children, she is in financial difficulty and therefore, the learned Single Judge while passing such direction about deduction of 25 per cent from the salary of the appellant-respondent no.6, has committed no illegality. 5. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, deem it fit and proper first to refer about the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground under the National Coal Wage Agreement which has been enshrined under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the said agreement is having statutory fervour. It requires to refer herein that under the National Coal Wage Agreement, the dependants have been defined, and however, the son of deceased employee has got priority over the other family members, the Widow daughter-in-law has also been entitled for compassionate appointment but she is in the second line of dependants. However, the writ petitioner has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground but simultaneously, the appellant has also made an application for such appointment and the authority considering the priority to be given in the matter of compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased, has considered the application of the appellant since he happens to be the son of the deceased employee and accordingly, the appointment on compassionate ground was offered in his favour. The respondent no.1 has preferred writ petition before this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, wherein it has been brought to the notice of this Court about the undertaking furnished by the appellant-respondent no.6 as on 02.01.2015 to the effect that he shall look after and support other family members who were dependants on his father. 6. It is admitted fact that the writ petitioner was also one of the dependant being the widow daughter-in-law of the deceased employee. 6. It is admitted fact that the writ petitioner was also one of the dependant being the widow daughter-in-law of the deceased employee. The grievance of the writ petitioner before the writ Court was that her brother-in-law namely Chhotelal Karmali-respondent no.6, is not supporting her financially and therefore, according to her, he has committed breach of undertaking dated 02.01.2015, basis upon which, he has been granted compassionate appointment. 7. Learned Single Judge while appreciating the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground, which is to extend the immediate financial support to the family in distress and the widow daughter-in-law would constitute family of the deceased employee, therefore, it was incumbent upon the person who has got employment on compassionate ground to look after all the family members of the deceased employee to achieve object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground. It further appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge about making reference of the allegation that the appellant-respondent no.6 has failed to support the writ petitioner. Considering the plight of the widow lady, the writ petitioner who happens to be daughter-in-law of the deceased employee along with her children, the learned Single Judge has passed an order directing the Project Officer, Kuju Siding to ensure that the deduction to the extent of 25 per cent from the salary of the respondent no.6 is affected and the amount is transmitted into the bank account of the writ petitioner. 8. Accordingly, in our considered view, as has been observed hereinabove about the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground, is to provide relief to the entire family members from the penury after the death of the bread-earner. If any of the family members is making allegation that he/she is not being looked after financially, it would go to suggest that the object and spirit of compassionate appointment is tried to be frustrated. If any of the family members is making allegation that he/she is not being looked after financially, it would go to suggest that the object and spirit of compassionate appointment is tried to be frustrated. It is also admitted in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge that to achieve the object and intent of compassionate appointment, the appellant-respondent no.6 had furnished an undertaking on 02.01.2015 to maintain the family members of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner being the widow daughter-in-law of the deceased employee has also got right to be maintained from the financial aid which has now been provided to the writ petitioner, therefore, in order to achieve the object and intent of appointment on compassionate ground and if 25 per cent from the salary of the appellant-respondent no.6 has been directed to be transmitted to the account of the writ petitioner, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 9. This Court on the basis of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 10. In the result, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. 11. So far as I.A.No.995 of 2020 and I.A.No.3962 of 2019 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing the relief sought for in both the interlocutory applications. 12. Accordingly, I.A.No.995 of 2020 and I.A.No.3962 of 2019 are dismissed as not pressed.