JUDGMENT : I.A. No.4076 of 2018: 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 19 days in preferring the instant appeal. 3. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 4. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No.229 of 2018: 5. The is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2912 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the order dated 28.02.2008 by which the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner for appointment on account of death of her mother in harness, has been rejected, which has been declined to be interfered with. 6. The brief fact of the case which requires to be referred, reads as under: The mother of the appellant/writ-petitioner was employed under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the CCL) as “Kamin”. She died in harness on 21.08.2007. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the appellant/writ-petitioner on 25.12.2007 but the same was declined on the ground that the name of the appellant/writ-petitioner was not found mentioned in the service excerpts of the employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini, Kamin Category-II. The appellant/writ-petitioner produced a photocopy of the letter dated 27.03.2003 as has been annexed as Annexure-3 claiming that her mother had already submitted an application for entering name of her children in her service excerpts. The appellant/writ-petitioner also produced Form-P.S.-III and P.S.-IV showing therein the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini. 7. The appellant/writ-petitioner produced a photocopy of the letter dated 27.03.2003 as has been annexed as Annexure-3 claiming that her mother had already submitted an application for entering name of her children in her service excerpts. The appellant/writ-petitioner also produced Form-P.S.-III and P.S.-IV showing therein the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini. 7. The writ petitioner has claimed that although by virtue of letter dated 27.03.2003 the request has been made to insert the name of the children of the deceased employee in the service excerpts but has not been inserted and further the writ petitioner has taken aid of the Form-P.S.-III & IV showing therein the name of the writ petitioner, basis upon which, the writ petitioner has claimed that she being the dependant of the deceased employee, therefore, as per the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement, in short NCWA, she is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground but the respondent authorities have rejected the same vide order dated 28.02.2008 on the ground that the name of the dependant of late Kunti Bhuini is not appearing in any of the five records, i.e., service sheet/ service excerpts, Form ‘A’, Gratuity nomination form and CMPF record and in absence thereof the case for employment cannot be considered. The said order has been challenged before this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the learned Single Judge has refused to show indulgence in the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 by dismissing the writ petition which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the ground of rejection for appointment on compassionate ground is not sustainable in the eye of law as the writ petitioner has been able to produce the Form-P.S.-III & IV disclosing therein the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the deceased employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini but this aspect of the matter has not properly been considered by the learned Single Judge. Further, submission has been made that the learned Single Judge although has considered Form-P.S.-III & IV wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been reflected as 18 years but the certification of the document since was dated 08.08.2008 whereas the writ petitioner has claimed that her mother died on 21.08.2007, as such, the Form-P.S.-III & IV have not been considered since the document was after the death of the mother of the writ petitioner. Further the learned Single Judge has considered the plea taken by the respondent-CCL in the counter affidavit that as on 01.09.1995 the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 3 years and taking it into consideration, her age was 16 years and 04 months and since there is no provision for keeping a female dependant on live roster being the minimum for appointment in the respondent-CCL 18 years, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be provided with appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Per contra, Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel for the CCL has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as the name of the writ petitioner does not found mentioned in any of the valid documents, i.e., service sheet/ service excerpts, Form ‘A’, Gratuity nomination form and CMPF record, therefore, the decision which has been taken by rejecting the claim of the writ petition for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. Further, she submits that so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner that the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the reason assigned for rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner, the same is not fit to be considered for the reason that the said document wherein the document i.e., Form-P.S.-III & IV upon which the writ petitioner is basing having been certified on 08.08.2008 showing the writ petitioner aged about 18 years, cannot be said to be conclusive in view of the fact that it is the case of the writ petitioner that her mother died on 21.08.2007 and when the date of death is 21.08.2007 there is no question of putting signature of her mother on 08.08.2008 and as such, when such document is of the writ petitioner, the plea of having not referred in the impugned order cannot be considered. She further submits that as per the condition of the NCWA as under para 9.5.0 (iii) the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided to the dependant of the deceased employee and in case of the dependant having found to be 12 years of age or above the male dependant would be kept in live roster and if there is any female dependant she will be entitled for monetary compensation but herein from the own document shown by the writ petitioner, i.e., Form-P.S.-III & IV, the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 16 years and 04 months, therefore, she is having less than 18 years of age, as such, she cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as under para 9.3.2 and further since she is female dependant and having less than the age of 18 years, she cannot be kept in live roster. According to learned counsel for the CCL, if the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all these facts basis upon which the writ petition has been rejected the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. 10. In response to such stand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even accepting that the writ petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground but she cannot be denied the claim for monetary compensation as under para 9.5.0 (ii). The learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, in response to such submission has submitted by referring to the order passed by the appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 wherein the status of the writ petitioner of legal heir of the deceased employee has been disputed, therefore, even the amount of gratuity has not been paid in her favour making it a condition that if succession certificate would be produced the disbursement of the amount of gratuity can be considered, therefore, according to her, when the status of the writ petitioner itself is in dispute there is no question of disbursement of even the monetary compensation as has been provided under para 9.5.0 (ii). 11. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts which has got relevance in the matter. 11. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts which has got relevance in the matter. The writ petitioner claims that her mother who was working as Kamin, Category-II under respondent-CCL died in harness on 21.08.2007. An application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the writ petitioner on 25.12.2007. The aforesaid claim was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2008 on the ground that the name of the writ petitioner does not find mentioned in any of the admissible five records, i.e., service sheet/ service excerpts, Form ‘A’, Gratuity nomination form and CMPF record. The writ petitioner approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2912 of 2010 wherein she has accepted the reason assigned in the order dated 28.02.2008 since it is the case of the writ petitioner that her name since was not inserted in the service excerpts of her deceased mother and her mother during the lifetime made an application on 23.07.2003 for entering the name of her children in her service excerpts but for one reason or the other the name of the children of the deceased employee has not been inserted in the service excerpts, therefore, she is basing her claim on Form-P.S.-III & IV which discloses the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the deceased employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini. It further appears from the Form-P.S.-III & IV that the age of the writ petitioner has been indicated as 18 years showing therein the Right Thumb Impression (RTI) of the mother of the writ petitioner and the certification of the said document is dated 08.08.2008. Before the writ Court, counter affidavit was filed by the respondent-CCL stating inter alia that as on 01.09.1995 the age of the writ petitioner was found to be 03 years, as such, on the date of death of the employee i.e., on 21.08.2007 the age of the writ petitioner according to her own document was less than 18 years. Before the writ Court, counter affidavit was filed by the respondent-CCL stating inter alia that as on 01.09.1995 the age of the writ petitioner was found to be 03 years, as such, on the date of death of the employee i.e., on 21.08.2007 the age of the writ petitioner according to her own document was less than 18 years. It requires to refer herein that no rejoinder to the counter was filed by the writ petitioner before the writ Court, therefore, the age which has been pleaded in the counter affidavit by the respondent-CCL of the writ petitioner as 03 years as on 01.09.1995, is to be accepted having not been disputed by the writ petitioner. 12. The writ petitioner is claiming for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuance to the provision as contained under para 9.5.0 of NCWA, during the relevant time, the NCWA-VI was in vogue. 13. This Court, deem it fit and proper to refer the various conditions of the NCWA which are applicable in the present case wherefrom it transpires that the agreement has been arrived at in between the employer and the Union representing the workmen other than in course of conciliation as under Clause 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the same has got statutory force and in consequence thereof, is binding upon the parties. 14. The relevant provision by way of social security measure has been provided under para 9.3.2 and 9.5.0, which been reproduced as under: “9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 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 the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. 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 dependant 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 exiting rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised.” It is evident from the National Coal Wage Agreement which contains a provision to keep the dependant of the deceased employee in live roster if the age of the dependant of the deceased employee is less than 12 years till he/she 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 as para (i) and (ii) above making it effective from 01.01.2000. It is, thus, evident that the condition as contained under para 9.5.0 (iii) provides for providing appointment by keeping the dependant of the deceased employee in live roster if the male dependant is of 12 years or above in age and during that course the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation, therefore, the question of payment of monetary compensation is to be followed in case of female dependant in a situation when the male dependant will be on live roster, meaning thereby, if the male dependant is on live roster, the payment of monetary compensation in favour of the female dependant as under condition contained in para 9.5.0 will be permissible. Further provision which requires to be referred herein which contains the condition for employment to one dependant of the worker who dies in harness as under para 9.3.2, the aforesaid condition clarified with respect to female dependant which shall be considered either for employment or for payment of monetary compensation as under the provision of para 9.5.0. It appears from the provision of para 9.5.0 (i) that 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 in case of death due to mine accident while para 9.5.0 (ii) provides that if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/-per month or employment and in case female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 15. We have proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the authority vis-à-vis the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. Admittedly, the name of the writ petitioner does not find mentioned in either of the conclusive document even as per the case of the writ petitioner since as would be evident from the representation dated 23.07.2003 the request said to have been made by the deceased mother of the writ petitioner for inserting the name of her children in the service excerpts. 17. 17. In view of this admitted documents if the respondent authorities have decided to reject the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground having not found her name in the conclusive records, i.e., service sheet/ service excerpts, Form ‘A’, Gratuity nomination form and CMPF record, the same cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing writ of certiorari on the ground that the name of the writ petitioner admittedly has not been mentioned in the conclusive service records of the deceased employee and it is settled that the writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise of power conferred to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any perversity in the finding or there is jurisdictional error or the order is contrary to the statutory provision but according to our considered view none of such ground is available warranting any interference with the order dated 28.02.2008 and if the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from error. So far as the consideration about the document which has been produced by way of Form-P.S.-III & IV by the writ petitioner is concerned, the same has also been considered by the learned Single Judge since on the basis of the said document, the writ petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court showing her age as 18 years since the age of 18 years found mentioned against the name of the writ petitioner but the said document has been doubted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the certification of the document is dated 08.08.2008 whereas the writ petitioner has claimed that her mother died on 21.08.2007. The Form-P.S.-III & IV as has been annexed as Annexure-4/1 to the paperbook discloses the Right Thumb Impression (RTI) of the deceased mother and as such the question is that when the mother of the writ petitioner died on 21.08.2007 as per the case of the writ petitioner the document which has been certified after the date of the death i.e., on 08.08.2008 cannot be given conclusive reliance. Further, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the age of the writ petitioner as on 01.09.1995 to be 03 years and as such, as on the date of death of her mother, the age of the writ petitioner has been found to be less than 18 years which is the minimum age for appointment under the respondent-CCL, in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found the case of the writ petitioner not fit to be considered being lesser in age than the minimum age for making entry in service under the respondent-CCL. We, after going across the aforesaid reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, are of view that the said finding cannot be disturbed mainly for the reason that the document which has been placed by the writ petitioner, i.e., Form-P.S.-III & IV reflecting the age of the writ petitioner as 18 years but that has not been found to be a conclusive document in view of the certification of the said document which is dated 08.08.2008 i.e., after the date of the death of deceased mother of the writ petitioner who claims to have died on 21.08.2007. Further, in the counter affidavit, the age of the writ petitioner has been referred as 03 years as on 01.09.1995, therefore, on the date of death of the mother of the writ petitioner, i.e., on 21.08.2007 the age is found to be lesser than the age of 18 years and hence, is not eligible to be considered for appointment under the respondent-CCL wherein the minimum age prescribed for entering in service is 18 years. 18. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to a conclusive finding that on such a disputed question of fact, no writ can be issued which according to our considered view cannot be faulted with for the reason that the jurisdiction of the writ court as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to issue appropriate writ in case of unimpeachable document and if the document is impeachable the same is required to be proved or disproved which is not possible under the summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction. Further, even the status of the writ petitioner has been doubted since the writ petitioner has claimed to have made an application before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for disbursement of the amount of gratuity but the same has also not been directed to be paid in view of the dispute in the status of the writ petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased employee, therefore, the authority has disposed of the application with an observation giving liberty to the writ petitioner to produce the succession certificate. In that view of the matter, if the learned Single Judge has taken a view about status of the writ petitioner as her daughter which has been doubted in a proceeding by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, no positive order can be passed unless and until the succession certificate would be produced but the question herein is that what is the nexus of producing the succession certificate obtained from the competent court in the matter of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground to be provided in view of the condition agreed under NCWA. In this context, we are of the view that the succession certificate has got nothing to do with the consideration of the dependant of the deceased employee for appointment on compassionate ground under the NCWA. 19. This Court, after taking into consideration the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity, accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2912 of 2010. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant at this juncture has submitted that the respondent authority at least is liable for making payment of monetary compensation in view of the provision of para 9.5.0 (ii) but the same has also been disputed on the ground that so long as the succession certificate is not produced even the monetary compensation cannot be paid in favour of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case for obtaining succession certificate has already been filed before the Principle District Judge, Giridih being Succession Case No.05 of 2012 and therefore, at least liberty may be given go the writ petitioner to ventilate her grievance in case of any positive direction passed in favour of the writ petitioner in the aforesaid Succession Case No.05 of 2012 for making payment of monetary compensation in view of the provision of para 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA. Upon such submission, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has submitted that such liberty may be granted to the writ petitioner. 21. This Court, after considering the submission as also taking into consideration the condition stipulated under para 9.5.0 (ii) which provides holding the female dependant entitled for monetary compensation or employment but herein there is no question of employment since we have already discussed as above but so far as question of disbursement of monetary compensation as per the condition as referred in para 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA is concerned, this Court, is of the view that if the condition has been stipulated to make monetary compensation in favour of the female dependant the same is required to be considered by the authority. However, since the status in the capacity of legal heir of the deceased employee itself is in doubt for which the writ petitioner has filed a succession case being Succession Case No.05 of 2012, therefore, we deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi, respondent No.2 along with succession certificate declaring her to be legal heir of Late Kumari Kunti Bhuini. If such application would be filed the same shall be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law forthwith. 22. In the result, the instant appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and finding.