JUDGMENT : I.A No.2251 of 2020 The instant interlocutory application has been filed, seeking leave of this Court to file three documents i.e. the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1794 of 2014,which according to the learned counsel for the appellants is on similar facts and circumstances hence applicable, the service excerpts of Dashrath Barahi and the communication dated 13.02.2019 issued by Deputy Manager (Personnel) addressed to the General Manager, Sijua Region by which the appointment on compassionate ground was provided to the kin of late Dashrath Barahi i.e. in favour of Kamaldeo Kumar Barahi. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these three documents although, were not part of the record before the writ Court but the same may be considered in the ends of justice, otherwise, according to him, the writ petitioners/appellants will suffer irreparable loss and consideration of the relevant documents is necessary for proper adjudication of the lis. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Limited, has submitted that although said documents were not part of the record of the writ Court but if it is relevant as per the learned counsel for the appellants, the same may be considered. 4. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the grounds agitated in the instant interlocutory application, deem it fit and proper to consider the same in order to come to the final conclusion pertaining to legality and propriety of the impugned order. Accordingly, I.A. No.2251of 2020 is allowed. L.P.A. No.782 of 2018 5. The instant appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, directed against the order/judgment dated 23.08.2018 passed by learned Single of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3330 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the writ petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has been negated, inter alia, on the ground that by the time declaration on civil death was rendered by the civil court, the deceased employee had already attained the age of superannuation and further after about 27 years since father of the petitioner no.2 was missing, therefore, the object and intent of the appointment on compassionate ground will not be achieved if the appointment would be granted on compassionate ground after lapse of 27 years. 6. 6. The brief facts of the case, which require to be enumerated for proper consideration of the lis, read hereunder as: The appellants are heirs of late Buchan Bihari Dhibar, who was permanent employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The appellant no.1 is the wife and the appellant no.2 is the son of the deceased employee. Late Buchan Bihari Dhibar, the deceased employee had joined his services under the respondents-BCCL on 21.04.1972 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the service record dated 23.02.1948. The said Buchan Bihari Dhibar left his home on 12.01.1991 and thereafter, he never came back, in consequence thereof, a missing report was made before the Officer in-charge, Katras Police Station, Katrasgarh on 03.03.1992. The said Buchan Bihari Dhibar was dismissed on the ground of unauthorized absence by issuing ex-parte charge sheet on 15.11.1991 as also by holding ex-parte domestic enquiry and finally the order of dismissal was passed on 31.01.1992. The appellant no.1 had made an application on 22.06.1992 before the respondents to release monetary support so that she may recover from the poverty and search of her husband. The appellant no.1 had subsequently filed an application for setting aside ex-parte order of dismissal, agitating the ground that her husband since was traceless in January 1991, hence it cannot be said to be a ground of dismissal on account of holding absence as unauthorized. The appellant no.1 also prayed for her consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant no.1 had earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court, questioning the order of dismissal being W.P.(S) No.4416 of 2009 as also for direction for release of post death benefit, which was disposed of vide dated 27.09.2012 in terms of the judgment dated 29.04.2002 passed in C.W.J.C No.780 of 2000(R) (Smt. Renuka Mahatain vs. Union of India& Ors.) reported in 2002 (2) JLJR 314 . According to the writ petitioners/appellants, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed but the same was negated on the pretext that there is no declaration by the competent court of civil jurisdiction about the civil death. The appellants thereafter, filed a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Dhanbad for declaration of death as plaintiff-husband Buchan Bihari Dhibar being Title Suit No.17 of 2012. The appellants thereafter, filed a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Dhanbad for declaration of death as plaintiff-husband Buchan Bihari Dhibar being Title Suit No.17 of 2012. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 29.01.2016 giving a declaration about civil death of the husband of the appellant no.1 and thereafter, the application was filed for consideration of candidature of appellant no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground but the same had been rejected vide order dated 08.02.2017 against which the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3330 of 2017 had been preferred. However, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order against which the present intra court appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that since there is no difference in between civil death and natural death and once there is a declaration by civil court about civil death of the husband of appellant no.1 from the date of missing i.e. 12.01.1991, negating the claim for appointment on compassionate ground to the appellant no.2,would tantamount to an arbitrary exercise of power that too in terms of agreement known as National Coal Wage Agreement. He submits that in similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1794 of 2014 has passed the order in favour of the employee, directing for providing appointment on compassionate ground but for the reasons best known to the respondents-Management is taking different stand, and further the judicial discipline demands parity in the matter and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 8. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL, has vehemently opposed the ground and submission agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge since according to him, the appellants have approached to the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting a declaration about civil death only when the husband of the appellant no.1 had attained the normal age of superannuation, which he attained in the month of February, 2008 and as such, the case of the writ petitioners/appellants has rightly been rejected since the appellants themselves have delayed the matter in approaching to the competent court of civil jurisdiction in getting declaration about civil death. He submits that the matter would have been different, if appropriate application for getting declaration of civil death would have been filed before the competent court within normal age of superannuation of the husband of the appellant no.1 but, when the appellants themselves have committed laches in approaching to the competent court of civil jurisdiction within time, i.e., during the subsistence period of the tenure of the services of husband of the appellant no.1, no relief can be granted so far as appointment on compassionate ground is concerned as the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided only in case where employee has died in harness, but once the employee would attain the age of superannuation, the question of dying in harness will not be there and, therefore, no appointment on compassionate ground can be provided. He further submits that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1794 of 2014,on facts of the case in hand would not be applicable, since therein the dependent of the employee, who was missing, had approached to the competent court of civil jurisdiction immediately after lapse of seven years as required under the provision of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, and further, the declaration of the competent court of civil jurisdiction about civil death had come and only thereafter, the direction for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground was ordered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1794 of 2014. Therefore, he submits that the factum and question of providing appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of superannuation was not in issue in the case and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable on the present set of facts. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, some undisputed facts which are necessary to be mentioned in this case, are that the husband of the appellant no.1 had joined services of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 21.04.1972 on the basis of the date of birth entered in the service record dated 23.02.1948. The date of birth of the husband of the appellant no.1 since was 23.02.1948 and as such, the normal date of superannuation would be last day of the February, 2008 i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years. The date of birth of the husband of the appellant no.1 since was 23.02.1948 and as such, the normal date of superannuation would be last day of the February, 2008 i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years. The husband of the appellant no.1 was found missing from 12.01.1991, which led the appellant no.1 to report before the concerned police station, in the meanwhile, the husband of the appellant no.1 was dismissed from services against which the litigation had been made and finally the order of termination was recalled. 10. This Court, after considering the submission made on behalf of the parties, had found that the question which is to be answered would be as to whether, on attaining the age of superannuation, the employment on compassionate ground can be provided in a case of civil death. This Court, in order to answer this issue, deem it fit to refer Rule 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, which contains the provision for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of an employee. The said provision is being referred here under: “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent: Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents 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 dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/-per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/-per month or employment. In case the female dependent 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 dependent of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with the skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) and (ii) above. (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years. (v) The rate of monetary compensation which stands at Rs. 2000/-and Rs. 3000/-per month as mentioned above would be reviewed w.e.f., 01.07.1996. (vi) The rate of monetary compensation will be reviewed as and when new wage agreements are finalised. Note: In the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at bipartite level. This would supersede all past agreements, circulars and instructions issued on the subject in so far as the issues are covered by the provisions herein above.” It has already been decided by this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) JLJR 33 and in the case of Podin Devi vs. Central Coalfileds Ltd. and Ors. in W.P.(S) No.4946 of 2011 vide judgment dated 01.05.2013 that there is no distinction between civil death and natural death of a person after such a declaration is made by the competent court under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, admitted facts herein are that the husband of appellant no.1 became traceless from 12.01.1991 and under the provision of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, it is provided that if a person is found to be traceless for a period of seven years, a declaration is to be obtained about civil death. In the case in hand, admittedly the husband of the appellant no.1 become traceless from 12.01.1991, meaning thereby, the period of seven years requiring the dependent of the traceless employee to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting a declaration of civil death as under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act would be in the year 1998. Thus, after 1991, such suit for declaration ought to have been filed sometimes in the year 1998, but the appellants had filed case before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in the year 2012, as would appear from Annexure-2 being Title Suit No.17 of 2012 for declaration of death as plaintiff’s husband Buchan Bihari Dhibar, in which, decree has been passed on 29.01.2016. The appellants thereafter, had filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of judgment/decree dated 29.01.2016 but the same had been negated on the ground that on the date such application was filed, the husband of the appellant no.1 had attained the age of superannuation. So far as this fact is concerned, it is not in dispute that as per the case of the appellants, the husband of the appellant no.1 had already attained the age of superannuation on the last day of February, 2008 but the suit for getting a declaration about civil death had been filed in the year 2012, i.e. after attaining the age of superannuation of the husband of the appellant no.1. As has been agreed between the Unions and the authorities of the Coal India Limited including its subsidiary, who have reached into an agreement under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein a condition has been stipulated in the said agreement for providing appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of the employee in harness. It is not in dispute that the agreement reached under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be binding upon both the parties and as such, the terms and conditions of the agreement is to be obeyed by the parties. The main purpose of the condition is to provide appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the dependent of the employee in order to get rid of penury due to sudden demise of bread earner and that would only be considered, in case the employee has died in service i.e. harness or on the ground of medical incapacity, but here is the case of civil death. It is also not in dispute that if a public servant will attained the age of superannuation, he will be separated from the roll of the employee and in that circumstances, if death of such employee occurs after attaining the age of superannuation, there cannot be appointment on compassionate ground as appointment on compassionate ground is only provided in case of death of an employee in harness. Herein, to get a declaration from the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the application had been filed in the year 2012 i.e. after the husband of appellant no.1 had attained the age of superannuation i.e. last day of February, 2008 and hence, even if there is declaration about civil death vide decree/judgment dated 29.01.2016, it would not be appropriate to consider the appellant for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground, however, it is to be considered for other purpose like post death benefits etc. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to impress upon applicability of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1794 of 2014. This Court, has examined the factual aspects involved therein and has found that the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for the two reasons; Firstly, since the suit was filed in that case for declaration of civil death immediately after lapse of seven years but in the case in hand the suit has been filed after lapse of 21 years from the date of missing, i.e., 12.01.1991 and secondly, the issue which fell for consideration before this Court was not as to whether the appointment can be provided on compassionate ground even after attaining the age of superannuation in case of civil death. Since such issue was not dealt with, therefore, said judgment would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as has been discussed hereinabove, holds that the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the impugned order, cannot be faulted with. 14. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.