JUDGMENT : (R.M. Chhaya, J.) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7723/2016, the original petitioner/ appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal. 2. The following facts emerge from the record of this appeal. The appellant is the younger sister of Late M. Guruloo, who was working with Coal India Limited as a permanent employee and expired while in service on 25.07.2002. As per the record, Late M. Guruloo was survived by his wife, son and brother. It is the case of the appellant that Late M. Guruloo took divorce from his wife, Mrs. M. Jyoti, in Title Suit (Divorce Case) No.22/1996. It is further the case of the appellant that Late M. Guruloo executed a Will in favour of the appellant and bequeathed all his property to the appellant. According to the appellant, the appellant obtained a Probate Certificate from District Judge, Tinsukia in Probate Case No.139/2002. It is further the case of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to all benefits as dependant of the deceased M. Guruloo, who was an employee of the Coal India Limited. According to the appellant, the son of Late M. Guruloo is not interested in getting an employment in Coal India Limited and, therefore, the appellant should be accommodated. 3. As per the record, the appellant issued a legal notice through her advocate, Shri B.N. Dubey, to the respondent Coal Company demanding to provide her employment in place of her late brother M. Guruloo and also to pay pension as per the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998. The said notice was replied by the General Manager (P) of North Eastern Coalfields on 03.03.2015 informing the appellant that as the appellant is the sister, she is not entitled to get monthly pension. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant again approached the respondent Coal Company with a request to reconsider the issue and further issued a legal notice for the second time on 08.02.2016. 4. The said notice was again replied by the Coal India Limited with a communication dated 11.06.2016 informing that she is not entitled to any benefit. 4. The said notice was again replied by the Coal India Limited with a communication dated 11.06.2016 informing that she is not entitled to any benefit. According to the appellant, as per Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), sister is included in the word “dependant” and further relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. -Vs- Ram Rakhi, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 560 , it was contended that the widowed sister is included in the term “family” for claiming family pension and, therefore, she would be entitled to the benefits, as prayed for. 5. In the writ petition, the respondent filed an affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge and contended that the appellant has made an attempt to mislead the Court inasmuch as that the fact that the appellant is a married daughter of Shri M. Appalswami would not be entitled to compassionate appointment or compensation. Denying the contentions raised by the appellant, it was contended by the respondent Coal India Limited that the appellant has already been paid the money receivable by her brother including provident fund dues by the respondent authorities solely on the basis of probate obtained by her, which was also obtained without notice to the son of Late M. Guruloo. It is also contended by the respondent authorities that in fact the son of Late M. Guruloo applied for compassionate appointment on attaining majority on 20.02.2012, i.e. after almost 10(ten) years, and the same was rejected on ground of delay, which has not been challenged by the son of the respondent. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and examining the provisions of Chapter – IX of NCWA, more particularly, Clauses 9.3.2 and 9.3.3, came to the conclusion that the said provision excludes sister of the deceased employee whether married or unmarried and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to any benefit and was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide judgment & order dated 25.10.2017. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 8. Mr. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 7. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 8. Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant took this Court to the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended that by including brother to be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment and family pension and not including sister is nothing but gender discrimination. It was also contended that the Schedule made applicable in case of the appellant is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that liberal interpretation should be given on the basis of the fact that the appellant alone is the sole dependant of the deceased M. Guruloo and his wife having been divorced and the son not being interested either in family pension or compassionate appointment, the appellant should be considered to be the dependant of the deceased and be given the benefits. It was urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. 9. Per contra, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Coal India Limited has relied upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant as a sister, that too married, is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment or family pension. It was contended by Mr. Ahmed, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the Clauses 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 of the NCWA. Mr. Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the respondent Coal India Limited contended that the contention raised by the appellant that there is gender discrimination and that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is without any basis. Mr. Ahmed further contended that the provisions of the NCWA have to be construed as it is and no liberal interpretation can be made so as to accommodate the appellant. It was contended by Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Ahmed further contended that the provisions of the NCWA have to be construed as it is and no liberal interpretation can be made so as to accommodate the appellant. It was contended by Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 10. Chapter – IX of the NCWA provides for “Social Security”. Clause 9.3 provides for “Provision of Employment to the Dependants” and Clauses 9.3.1 to 9.3.3 provides as under:- “9.3.0. Provision of Employment to Dependants. 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 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.” 11. The aforesaid provisions clearly provide that employment would be provided to one dependant of the worker, who are disabled permanently or those who died while in service. It is inter alia provided in Clause 9.3.2 that so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. Clause 9.3.3 clearly provides that the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband, as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son and 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. 12. Bare reading of the said provisions clearly stipulates that sister, unmarried or married, is not included within the definition of the word “dependant”. Clause 9.5 provides for employment or monetary compensation to female dependant which is to be read with the “dependant” as defined under Clause 9.3.3. 12. Bare reading of the said provisions clearly stipulates that sister, unmarried or married, is not included within the definition of the word “dependant”. Clause 9.5 provides for employment or monetary compensation to female dependant which is to be read with the “dependant” as defined under Clause 9.3.3. The joint Bipartite Agreement, i.e. the NCWA, is applicable in the present case and as per Clause 9.3.3 thereof, unmarried sister or married sister, as in the present case, cannot be termed as “dependant”. Only because the appellant has obtained a probate, the same would not make her dependant. The probate granted is in relation to the property of the deceased. The right of being a dependant for consideration of compassionate appointment and/or any family pension or any monetary benefit is always governed by the Rules and as the appellant, who is a married sister cannot be included in the word “dependant”. Bequeath of a property as per the last wish of the donor and to get compassionate appointment after death or to get monetary benefit or family pension after death of an employee are different. Such entitlement cannot be bequeathed neither the same can be made a part of any Will as a last wish of the donor. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the Will, the appellant is dependant and hence will be entitled to the benefits of compassionate appointment and monetary benefit is dehors the provisions of the rules applicable and facts on record. Even the contention that there is discrimination and the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is without any basis. 13. It is a matter of fact that the appellant is married and has her own family. As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge when the second notice was given after the respondent authorities rejected the proposal made by the appellant, the appellant has, on the contrary, pleaded for reconsideration. In addition to this, M. Guruloo died on 25.07.2002. 13. It is a matter of fact that the appellant is married and has her own family. As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge when the second notice was given after the respondent authorities rejected the proposal made by the appellant, the appellant has, on the contrary, pleaded for reconsideration. In addition to this, M. Guruloo died on 25.07.2002. It is also a matter of record that the son of the deceased M. Guruloo, who falls within the definition of “dependant” as per Clause 9.3.3 did apply for compassionate appointment, which came to be rejected, which has been accepted by the son of the deceased and everyone in the family is not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment and/or for the monetary benefit including family pension. The learned Single Judge has observed in Paragraph 8 as under:- “8. ...... Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to reject the affidavit-in-opposition on the ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As for the other contention raised by the writ petitioner, it may be noticed that the petitioner admittedly being the sister of the deceased employee and the provisions contend in Chapter IX of the NCWA more particularly under Clause 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 excludes sister of the deceased employee whether married or on unmarried. In absence of the petitioner challenging the said provision for non-inclusion of the sister of the deceased employee, I am o f the considered view that a liberal construction of the said provision is not possible. If such construction is to be made, the same cannot be limited to sister only and the number of dependents that can be related to the employee would be endless. It may be noticed that the petitioner herself realized that the benefits as claim for is not available to a sister of the employee and therefore, even her legal notice through her counsel served to the respondents dated 08.02.2016, she had asked for reconsideration of her case as an exceptional one by liberal construction of the relevant provisions or even amend the same considering the scope and object behind the provision. In this context, what can only be observed by this Court is that the relaxation as sought for by the petitioner can only be determined and accorded by the employers themselves. In this context, what can only be observed by this Court is that the relaxation as sought for by the petitioner can only be determined and accorded by the employers themselves. It is not for the Court to embark upon an interpretation when it has not been called to do so. In short, the petitioner has not questioned the relevant provisions in his writ petition by challenging the same and therefore, considering the submissions and materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance against the respondents. It is a settled law that Court does not grant relief to a litigant on the basis of sympathy unless there are enforceable rights which has been violated.” 14. The Apex Court in the case of V. Sivamurthy -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 , has laid down the principles relating to compassionate appointment as under:- “18. The principles relating to compassionate appointments may be summarised thus: (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well-recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. (b) Two well-recognised contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are: (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner. Another contingency, though less recognised, is where landholders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project-affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. (d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependant member of the family of the employee concerned, that is, spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, Classes III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts. 15. In the case in hand also, the Rules does not include unmarried or married sister and in the present case, the appellant is a married sister as dependant. 16. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The grounds raised by the appellant are without any basis and the same deserves to be rejected. 17. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed no error much less any error apparent on the face of record, which warrants interference of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and the appeal being bereft of any merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.