JUDGMENT : 1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 04.08.2010 and 30.07.2010 by which the representation of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment has been rejected by the respondents. 2. The brief facts from the records would demonstrate how a widow is struggling to get dependent employment whose husband succumbed to death during course of employment while extinguishing fire in the mines. The petitioner's husband Late Gorelal was working as General Majdoor in Chirmiri open cast mines of SECL. On 10.02.1988, he was engaged in the extinguishing fire while discharging his duties, he was kept in fire and succumbed to death during course of his employment on 10.02.1988 itself. The petitioner and her son being dependents on deceased employee-Gorelal applied for grant of dependent appointment with the SECL. Her application was rejected on 27.10.1994 and again it was rejected on 01.10.2002. The said rejection order was challenged by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPS No. 2608/2003. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 3rd of February, 2006 :- “5. In view of the above stated provisions in N.C.W.A.-IV, which governs the compassionate appointment, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner No. 1, in accordance with law, as applicable at the time of making the application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3. The respondent in pursuance of the order passed by this Court has examined the case of the petitioner’s son which was rejected by the respondent on the count that when petitioner’s father expired in the year 1988, the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV (for short “NCWA”) was effective. According to which, there was no provision in the NCWA, which provides to keep life roster of dependent and at the time of death, he was 12 years, as such, he was not entitled to get compassionate appointment, accordingly, the application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before this Court to review the order and it be kindly reviewed that the present petitioner case may be considered. The said review petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2007. 4. Thereafter the petitioner filed WPS No. 2362/2009 claiming dependent employment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before this Court to review the order and it be kindly reviewed that the present petitioner case may be considered. The said review petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2007. 4. Thereafter the petitioner filed WPS No. 2362/2009 claiming dependent employment. This Court considering the submission of the parties, has passed the following order on 26.03.2010:- “3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, application has been made by the petitioner, as the case of the respondents is that for want of application the case of the petitioner could not be considered. If the application is not traceable the same shall be filed by the petitioner within one week and thereafter, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period four weeks from the date of its receipt.” 5. The respondent in view of the direction given by this Court has considered the case of the petitioner and again rejected the representation of the petitioner on 30.07.2010 and communicated the same to the petitioner on 4.8.2010 (Annexure P/1). These orders are being assailed by the petitioner before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner’s husband expired in the year 1988, at that time 4th Coal wage agreement was applicable and thereafter the 5th Coal wage Agreement was signed between the SECL and representative union of the workers who were working at the different mines of Coal India and its subsidiary. The 5th NCWA has made effective from 01.07.1991. The clause of 9.5.0 NCWA provides that the monetary compensation is also applicable to the female dependents, as such, he would submit that even if the petitioner is not entitled to get dependent appointment, she is entitled to get monetary benefits as compensation provides under the above said clause 9.5.0. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the agreement has been made effective from 01.07.1991 and the case of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1994, therefore, the SECL should have examined the matter in terms of the settlement which has been made effective from 01.07.1991 as on the date of consideration the policy was changed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the agreement has been made effective from 01.07.1991 and the case of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1994, therefore, the SECL should have examined the matter in terms of the settlement which has been made effective from 01.07.1991 as on the date of consideration the policy was changed. It is well settled position of law that at the time of consideration of the application the policy which was in force shall be given effect, as such, her case should have been considered in terms of 5th NCWA, not on the basis of 4th NCWA. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/SECL opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that once it has been rejected in the year 1994 it cannot be given effect, even no ground to this effect has been taken in the writ petition. He would submit that 5th NCWA will not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. He would further submit that since the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected therefore, present petition is barred by res-judicata, the writ petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissed of the writ petition. He would lastly submit that the petitioner has never claimed for monetary benefits even in these proceedings or any proceeding and she is contesting her case for last more than 20 years, therefore, her claim is barred by limitation and cannot be considered at this juncture as she has already survived for 34 years and object of grant of dependent employment or compensation is achieved, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before considering the factual matrix of the case, it is expedient for this Court to examine the nature of NCWA, its legal status and binding effect as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 10. The NCWA is a settlement under Section 2(p) of the said Act of 1947. 9. Before considering the factual matrix of the case, it is expedient for this Court to examine the nature of NCWA, its legal status and binding effect as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 10. The NCWA is a settlement under Section 2(p) of the said Act of 1947. Section 2 (p) states as follows:- "'settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to [an officer authorized in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer;]" 11. The NCWA is binding under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1957. Section 18(3) states as follows:- "18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.- 1. ********* 2. ********* (3) 4 ] A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 5 or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub- section (3A) of section 10A] or 6 an award 7 of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on— (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, 5 arbitrator,] 8 Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part." 12. From perusal of the above stated legal position and considering the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd & Ors., reported in 2008 (7) Supreme 525 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has examined the binding nature of NCWA at paragraph 2 & 10 which reads as under:- “2. Appellant's father Rameshwar Mahto was employed as a Fitter, Category IV, in a coal mine belonging to the respondent known as Kuju Colliery. He died in harness on 23.02.1997. The terms and conditions of the service of the workmen working in coal mines are inter alia governed by a 'Settlement' known as National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.) V. Indisputably, the said settlement, in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on the parties…….” 10. A settlement within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on compassionate ground, subject, of course, to compliance of the conditions precedent contained therein.” 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Motor Industries vs. Management of Motor Industries, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 13 held that a settlement under Section 2 (p) of the said Act of 1947, is a binding nature on the workmen and the management. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as paragraph 5 as under:- “5……..There can be no doubt that the settlement was one as defined by s. 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act and was binding on the workmen under s. 18 (3) of the Act until it was validly terminated and was in force when the said strike took place. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as paragraph 5 as under:- “5……..There can be no doubt that the settlement was one as defined by s. 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act and was binding on the workmen under s. 18 (3) of the Act until it was validly terminated and was in force when the said strike took place. The strike was a lightning one, was resorted to without notice and was not at the call of the association and was, therefore, in breach of cl. 5.” 14. In view of above stated, legal position, it is quite vivid that the NCWA is biding in nature for the workman and the management. In light of its binding effect, now the fact of the case has to be seen and the relevant clause of 5th NCWA has to be examined by this Court. The relevant clause of NCWA reads as 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. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if on 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 his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependents is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (1) & (ii) above. (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years APRIL 16 23 (Applicant) G (v) The rate of monetary compensation which stands at Rs. 2000/- and Rs. (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years APRIL 16 23 (Applicant) G (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 hereinabove.” 15. From the facts of record referred in the foregoing paragraphs, it will reflect that the petitioner is contesting her case for grant of dependent employment since 1988 after unfortunate death of her husband who died during course of employment. The petitioner’s claim was firstly rejected in the year 1994 on the count that as per the provision of Mines Act, women are not allowed to work in the mines area and thereafter her son’s claim was rejected that there was no provision for keeping live roster as at the time of death of his father, he was only 12 years and below 18, employment cannot be given. Even after direction given by this Court, the petitioner’s grievance was not considered favourably and was rejected by recording the finding that the application for dependent employment has been submitted after such a long delay, therefore, it cannot be considered, but the respondent has not taken into consideration the provisions of 5th NCWA, which were made effective from 01.07.1991, while considering the application of the petitioner for grant of dependent compensation, which was payable @ Rs. 2000/- per month at the time of rejection of the petitioner application for grant of dependent employment. Though the respondent should have examined for grant of dependent compensation to the petitioner in view of well settled position that the policy which is prevailing at the time of consideration should have been applied. The petitioner’s case was rejected in the year 1994 when the policy of grant of dependent compensation payable per month was already made effective on 01.07.1991. The non-consideration of the grant of monthly compensation, is against the judgment passed by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Santosh Vs. The petitioner’s case was rejected in the year 1994 when the policy of grant of dependent compensation payable per month was already made effective on 01.07.1991. The non-consideration of the grant of monthly compensation, is against the judgment passed by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2020 (7) SCC 617 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 17, 18 & 19 as under:- “17. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellants counsel on Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., it can not be said that the appellants claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the Government employee. (2019) 5 SCC 600 MANU/KA/0203/1999 (Writ Petition No.37931 of 1998) 18. In the most recent judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the bench, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The Dependent of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State’s policy.. 19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 16. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6689/2018 and other connected cases has also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of case N. C. Santosh (Supra) wherein it has been held in paragraph 63 & 67 which reads as under: “63. It is to be noticed that the decisions in Promila & Another (supra), N.C. Santosh (supra) and Ashish Awasthi (supra), came to be delivered after the reference was made to a larger Bench in Sheo Shankar Tewari (supra). In Promila & Another (supra), Amit Shrivas (supra) and Ashish Awasthi (supra), reference made to a larger Bench was not noticed. 67. It is seen that with regard to the question as to whether the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of opinion. It is already noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon’ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three-Judge Bench, a twoJudge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date of death of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three-Judge Bench, a twoJudge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date of death of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. It was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that where the benefit under the existing Policy was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, the Court directed the application of the new Policy, and in cases where the benefits under an existing Policy were enlarged by a modified Policy after the death of the employee, the Court applied only the Policy that was in force on the date of death of the employee. The same was also explained to the effect that such interpretation was fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law.” 17. Now this Court has to examine whether the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the non granting of dependent compensation suffers from res-judicata or not. The grant of dependent compensation was never claimed by the petitioner nor it has been decided by this Court or by the respondents. The issue for grant of dependent compensation has croped up before this Court for the first time and it has been decided by this Court for the first time, as such, submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner's claim suffers from res-judicata deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 18. The issue for grant of dependent compensation has croped up before this Court for the first time and it has been decided by this Court for the first time, as such, submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner's claim suffers from res-judicata deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 18. The petitioner’s claim for dependent compensation as per clause 9.5.0 of 5th NCWA, which has been made effective from 01.07.1991, has never been examined by the respondent/SECL while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment for various reasons, therefore, it is directed that the SECL should consider the case of the petitioner for grant of dependent compensation as per 5th NCWA within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order strictly in accordance with law and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get dependent compensation, the same shall be payable from 01.07.1991 on the date the benefits have been extended through the wage settlement which is binding in nature. 19. It is made clear that even the rejection of claim of the petitioner vide memo dated 04.08.2010 and 30.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) will not have any adverse effect while considering claim for dependent compensation, which shall be considered afresh without being any prejudice with earlier order of rejection of the application for grant of dependent employment. 20. With these observations & directions, the writ petition is allowed.