JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to release 50% wages in favour of the petitioner’s father w.e.f. 15.12.2017 in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner has been under complete disability in view of para 6.5.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement. Further prayer has been made for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of provision of 9.4.0 NCWA. 4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on behalf of his father namely, Nakul Ram for the reason that he is disabled and cannot walk. The father of the petitioner was employed with the respondents-CCL, Argada Colliery in the year 1990. His date of birth is 16.07.1960. His CMPF Number registered with the respondent authorities is 48-2425. The father of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Pump Operator and thereafter he was serving for the respondent authorities without any complain from any corner. The petitioner is intermediate pass and his date of birth is 07.12.1988 and an application for appointment on compassionate ground was made under the provision of NCWA 9.4.0. The father of the petitioner while in service has suffered some problem in leg and in course of treatment the right leg of the petitioner was cut in view of the fact that there was no blood circulation in down the knee. Medical prescription has been brought on record by way of Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The father of the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent-authorities who replied that a Medical Board would be constituted on 08.03.2017 and thereafter decision would be taken whether he is to be treated in Central Hospital Gandhinagar, Naya Sarai or he has to be referred to better hospital. On 04.03.2017, the petitioner immediately made an application before the respondent-authorities informing that he has to move for CMC Vellore under the emergent medical circumstances. On 04.03.2017, the petitioner immediately made an application before the respondent-authorities informing that he has to move for CMC Vellore under the emergent medical circumstances. The petitioner went to Vellore, however in the meantime, on 09.03.2017, the matter of the father of the petitioner was referred to Ruby Central Hospital Ltd, West Bengal. The father of the petitioner got admission in CMC Vellore and medical certificate has been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, the father of the petitioner was again examined by Ruby Central Hospital Ltd., West Bengal and medical certificate has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The father of the petitioner was also referred to the Medanta, Gurgaon where he underwent surgery and as a result of surgery, his right leg was cut and heart was also examined, in this regard medical report has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The application for payment of 50% wages has been filed by way of Annexure-7 to the writ petition. No medical board was instituted, in the meantime, the father of the petitioner retired on 31.07.2020. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has moved before this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of NCWA, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered by constituting a Medical Board but this has not been done in the case of the petitioner. He submits that the father of the petitioner was injured in the month March, 2017 and on 09.05.2017, he made application for payment of 50% wage and appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner but nothing has been done by the respondent-CCL. He submits that NCWA is the statutory in nature in view of the fact that tripartite agreement has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 . 6. Per contra, Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. He submits that in view of 6.5.2 of NCWA, the petitioner is not having such type of ailment which is prescribed in 6.5.2 NCWA, so far as 50% wage is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled. Per contra, Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. He submits that in view of 6.5.2 of NCWA, the petitioner is not having such type of ailment which is prescribed in 6.5.2 NCWA, so far as 50% wage is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled. He further submits that a committee was constituted under 10th Wage Agreement for CIL & SCCL and on 23.11.2018 in view of taking into consideration 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0. of N.C.W.A. it was decided as under: “A committee is constituted under the Chairmanship of Director (P&IR), CIL consisting of representatives of Trade Unions and Management to finalise the scheme for employment or financial benefits to the dependent. The aforesaid committee shall submit the scheme tentatively by 31st March, 2018. Till then, status quo shall be maintained in respect of these provisions. The recommendations of the Committee constituted vide Office Order Reference No. CIL/C-SB/JBCCL/324 dated 26/27.09.2017 under above provision was discussed in the third meeting of Standardization Committee of JBCCL-X held on 11.11.2018 at CIL (HQ), Kolkata and after detailed deliberation, it has been resolved as under:- “The existing practice of offer of employment in death cases (Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA) to the dependent of non-executive cadre employees in Category-1 (Trainee) Irrespective of their educational qualification shall continue You are requested to take necessary action to implement the above provision”. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL further submits that on 28.11.2018 further direction was issued to the effect that status quo shall be maintained in respect of these provision. The relevant part of the said direction is being reproduced here-in-below:- “A committee is constituted under the Chairmanship of Director (P&IR), CIL consisting of representatives of Trade Unions and Management to finalise the scheme for employment or financial benefits to the dependent. The aforesaid committee shall submit the scheme tentatively by 31st March, 2018. Till then, status quo shall be maintained in respect of these provisions” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL further submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. Nos. 614 and 615 of 2002 which was disposed on 06.11.2009. Till then, status quo shall be maintained in respect of these provisions” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL further submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. Nos. 614 and 615 of 2002 which was disposed on 06.11.2009. He further submits that the father of the petitioner has already retired and any loss of employment is not there, thus the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid L.P.As. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has ventured to go through the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as counter-affidavit and rejoinder. It is admitted position that the father of the petitioner received injury in March, 2017. The petitioner filed application on 09.05.2017 for payment of 50% wages in terms of 6.5.2 NC.W.A and for appointment on compassionate ground under 9.4.0. NCWA but the respondent-CCL has not acted in terms of the NCWA. The plea taken by the respondent-CCL with regard to committee report dated 23.11.2018 which says that status quo shall be maintained in respect of these provisions, this has been effected on 23.11.2018 whereas the case of the petitioner was to be considered w.e.f. 09.05.2017, thus, this decision is not coming in the way of the petitioner for consideration of the case of the petitioner on 09.05.2017 in view of the fact that this cannot be operative retrospectively. In the said decision it was also taken care of that dependent of non-executive cadre employees offer of employment in death cases shall continue. Thus so far as non-executive cadre employee is concerned, appointment was decided to be made in death cases, this aspect of the matter is giving effect from 23.11.2018 thus this cannot be allowed to operate retrospectively. Letter dated 23.11.2018 is prospective in nature, thus, it is not helping the respondent-CCL. So far as the case of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, that was required to be considered in terms of Clause 9.4.0. Letter dated 23.11.2018 is prospective in nature, thus, it is not helping the respondent-CCL. So far as the case of the petitioner for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, that was required to be considered in terms of Clause 9.4.0. N.C.W.A. The petitioner, no doubt, retired on 31.07.2020 however, it was incumbent upon the respondent-CCL to act upon the application of the petitioner on 09.05.2017 itself. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL in the aforesaid L.P.As. is on different issue wherein the litigant of that case approached the Tribunal after retirement. The Hon’ble Division Bench considering Clause 9.5.0 NCWA came to the conclusion that loss of employment is not there. The petitioner has already retired smoothly and this distinguishing fact is there so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, thus the said judgment is not helping the respondent-CCL. 10. In view of the matter, the respondent-CCL is required to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, so far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of 50% wages is concerned, certain diseases are prescribed in para 6.5.2 which is quoted here-in-below:- “6.5.2:- Grant of Special Leave to employees suffering from Heart Diseases, TB, Cancer, Leprosy, Paralysis, Renl Diseases, H.I.V. and Brain disease/disorder. Employees suffering from Heart diseases, TB, Cancer, Leprosy and Paralysis, Renal diseases, H.I.V., and Brain diseases/disorder shall be granted leave at 50% of wages (Basis Pay+VDA+SDA) till they are declared fit by the Company Medical Board or any other hospital to which the cases may be referred for treatment by the Management duly vetted by the company Medical Board”. 11. There is mention of one disease i.e. heart disease and the petitioner has brought on record the document which suggests that the petitioner is suffering from heart diseases and in view of Clause 6.5.2 NCWA, the respondent-CCL is required to examine the case of the petitioner by way referring the matter to the Medical Board and come to the conclusion whether the petitioner is entitled for back wages or not. 12. In view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the respondent-CCL is directed to act in terms of NCWAs which is statutory in nature as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohan Mahto” (Supra). 12. In view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the respondent-CCL is directed to act in terms of NCWAs which is statutory in nature as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohan Mahto” (Supra). The respondent-CCL shall issue necessary notice to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board within a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall abide by the direction of the respondent-CCL and will appear before the constituted Medical Board and pursuant to decision of the Medical Board, the respondent-CCL will act and will pass reasoned order. 13. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms. I.A., if any, stands disposed of