ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs : “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant all consequential and other benefit to the petitioner. (iii) Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest o justice. (iv) That, the Hon'ble court please to quash the impugned order dated 17.03.2013.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the father-in-law of the petitioner namely Late Vifal Ram was an regular and permanent employee of the respondents and his designation was D.C. Driller in the respondent Department. Working in such capacity, he was died on 16.09.2009, further the son of the late Vifal Ram namely Late Anjoy Say is died earlier on 16.10.2007, hence the petitioner is being the daughter-in-law is legally entitled to get compassionate appointment, hence applied for the compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities. 3. The wife of Late Vifal Ram is having the age of 56 years and not able to do labour work, hence she has given her No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, hence the petitioner is only the legal heir of Late Vifal Ram. During the course of civil suit, the respondent no. 1 to 3 had filed their reply before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Chirmiri, District Koriya and stated that as per National Coal Wage Agreement Chapter No.9, Clause No. 9.3.3, it is provided that the real dependent upon the deceased is wife and not the daughter-in-law. Daughter-in-law not comes within the ambit of dependent and as per definition, the petitioner is indirectly dependent upon the deceased late Vifal Ram, hence she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. It is further stated that the wife of late Vifal Ram is entitled to get monetary compensation till the age of 60, hence the petitioner cannot be awarded compassionate appointment and accordingly her application/suit claim for grant of compensation had been dismissed. It is further stated that the wife of late Vifal Ram is entitled to get monetary compensation till the age of 60, hence the petitioner cannot be awarded compassionate appointment and accordingly her application/suit claim for grant of compensation had been dismissed. The Court came to the conclusion that such jurisdiction has not awarded to the Court, hence the suit has been dismissed stating that for a compassionate appointment or issue direction to grant of compassionate appointment is not within the jurisdiction of the said Court, hence the suit has been dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court framed 3 issues and dismissed the suit without ascertaining the fact that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. The petitioner for establishing her case for compassionate appointment filed all the relevant documents before the respondent authorities. On one hand the respondent no. 1 to 3 are stated that the daughter-in-law (Bahu) is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as per their own policy, but on the other hand the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act to get information about the compassionate appointment of one of the employee Late Shankar same is communicated to the petitioner that after death of late Shankar his daughter-in-law (Bahu) Smt. Manmati has given the compassionate appointment. 5. After the unfortunate and untimely death of Late Vifal Ram father-in-law of petitioner, the respondents had given monetary compensation to the wife of late Vifal Ram and promised to give benefit till the age of 60 year of her. Before the trial Court, the wife of Late Vifal Ram namely Fulbasiya @ Fulsiya had given one affidavit stating that, she has no problem if the compassionate appointment has been awarded to her daughter-in-law namely Neelu (Petitioner). After receiving the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities communicated the petitioner that daughter-in-law is not entitled to get compassionate appointment according to their policy, hence she cannot be awarded with compassionate appointment and her claim has been dismissed for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. The respondents now illegally non-granting the appointment to the petitioner. The action is just contrary to the object of the policy. The petitioner being poor person having the responsibility of 3 minor son and daughter on her shoulder and also the responsibility of mother-in-law upon her. Further there is no male member in their family to earn. 6. The respondents now illegally non-granting the appointment to the petitioner. The action is just contrary to the object of the policy. The petitioner being poor person having the responsibility of 3 minor son and daughter on her shoulder and also the responsibility of mother-in-law upon her. Further there is no male member in their family to earn. The SECL has granted nominal compensation to the mother-in-law of the petitioner, which is not sufficient for their survival. The respondent being the welfare State is duty bound to grant employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The act and action of the respondent is wholly irrational and unreasonable. 7. The respondents are not granting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, though in fact she is entitled for the same. The respondents authority had forwarded the case of the petitioner, but the appointment had not been granted to the petitioner, because she is the daughter-in-law of Late Vifal Ram. That the petitioner earlier filed Civil Suit No. 27-A/2013 before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Chirmiri, District Koriya for grant of compassionate appointment, same was dismissed stating that the Civil Judge, Class-I have no power to grant compassionate appointment, further no power to declare legal successor (heirs) of the deceased Late Vifal Ram father in law of the petitioner, hence the suit was dismissed, though during the course of trial the defendants/respondents admitted in their reply dated 30.01.2014 that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment on the death of Late Vifal Ram, further in the letter communication dated 29.09.2010, it is mentioned that the widow sister-in-law is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as per rule, hence the compassionate appointment cannot be given to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and with the malafide intention. It is submitted that illegally and with an ulterior motive the respondent authority are not granting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. From the act and attitude of the respondent authority, they are trying to frustrate the opportunity of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. As per policy, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment, but the respondent no. From the act and attitude of the respondent authority, they are trying to frustrate the opportunity of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. As per policy, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment, but the respondent no. 1 to 3 are stated that in their policy it is not provided that to grant compassionate appointment to the daughter-in-law, but in the similar stated case one employee late Shankar died and on his behalf his daughter-in-law Smt. Manmati has granted compassionate appointment by the respondent authority. This fact is discloses in the information of RTI, so this bias attitude has been adopted by the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment. 10. The livelihood of the petitioner had been taken away by unnatural cause and now the respondent authorities are not providing the job and in such circumstance the petitioner is living like a beggar and her surviving on loans from near and dear. The case of the petitioner ought to have been considered as per the policy by the respondent. As far as the vacancy is concern, the petitioner is ready to accept any job at any level. The petitioner made several representations before the respondent authorities. In view of the above, the petitioner prays for grant of compassionate appointment with all consequential and other benefits by quashing the impugned order dated 17.03.2013. 11. In support of his contention, counsel for petitioner the placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 30.11.2015 in WPS No. 296/2014 (Smt. Sarojni Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2016, in WPS No. 5051/2014 (Smt. Duliya Bai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and the order passed by this Court on 17.06.2016, in WPS No. 4759/2014 (Miss Hamshikha Mallick v. Coal India Ltd. and others) and the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2021, in WPS No. 4819/2021 (Preety Nillay Matreja v. Coal India Limited and others) and the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of “Deepika Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another” reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 254 and the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur on 19.12.2022, in Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2011 (Sushila Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Another). 12. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner submits that former employee Mr. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner submits that former employee Mr. Vifal Ram was working in NCPH Colliery as a D.C. Driller. He died on 16/06/2009. The son of the employee died earlier on 16/10/2007. At the time of death of Mr. Vifal Ram, the National Coal Wage Agreement-VIII was effective. According to the Clause 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and sub-clause 1 of clause 9.5.0 of Chapter IX of the said Wage Agreement, the Clause of 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI will be operational. According to Clause 9.3.3 of Social Security 9 of National Coal Wage Agreement VI, the definition of dependents of the deceased is provided. The Petitioner does not fall under the definition of the dependents as the wife of the deceased is still alive. Copy of the Wage Agreement VI is Annexure R/1. The mere fact that the son of the deceased Mr. Anjor Sai died on 16/10/2007 does not accrue a right on the petitioner to be get compassionate appointment in the Respondent Authority. 13. According to the provisions of the Wage Agreement, the wife of the deceased can only seek financial help till the age of 60 years, however, instead of that, she sought compassionate appointment for her daughter-in-law by passing the provisions of the policy, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is misplaced and the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Petitioner wanted back door appointment to a public post without participating and facing open competition. The policy has no provision to provide employment to the daughter-in-law, when wife of the deceased is alive. As such her representation has rightly been rejected and the said rejection in absence of challenge has attained finality, therefore, this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 14. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 15. It is an admitted fact in this case that father-in-law of the petitioner late Vifal Ram was working in the respondent Department. He died on 16.06.2009. It is also an admitted position that son of the late Vifal Ram (i.e. husband of the petitioner) was also died earlier on 16.10.2007. 15. It is an admitted fact in this case that father-in-law of the petitioner late Vifal Ram was working in the respondent Department. He died on 16.06.2009. It is also an admitted position that son of the late Vifal Ram (i.e. husband of the petitioner) was also died earlier on 16.10.2007. It is also not disputed by the respondents that wife of late Vifal Ram was 56 years old and the petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents. 16. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of petitioner on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass such award. 17. The petitioner filed various documents, which shows that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of deceased employee Vifal Ram. The petitioner filed certificates which show that she is daughter-in-law late Vifal Ram and Smt. Fulsiya Bai. Mother-in-law of petitioner Smt. Fulsiya Bai (wife of deceased employee Vifal Ram) also filed an affidavit before the respondent authorities stating that she is aged about 56 years and due to old age she is not willing to accept appointment to perform office works, therefore compassionate appointment may be given to her daughter-in-law. 18. The respondent authorities submit that as per policy daughter-in-law does not fall under the definition of the dependents as the wife of the deceased is still alive. As per Annexure R/1, clause 9.3.3 and 9.3.4 provide as under : ^^9-3-3 vkfJr lnL; dk eryc gksxk ifr ;k iRuh] vfookfgr iq=h] iq= oS/kkfud xksn fy;k iq= vkSj bl rjg dksbZ vkfJr lnL; u gks rks HkkbZ] fo/kok iq= o/kq ;k nkekn tks deZpkjh ds lkFk jg jgk gks vkSj tks iwjh rjg deZpkjh dh dekbZ ij vkfJr gSA mls ;g jkstxkj fn;k tk;sxkA 9-3-4 vkfJr dks jkstxkj nsus ds lEcU/k esa ;g r; fd;k x;k fd ,slk O;fDr 'kkjhfjd :i ls LoLFk gks] jkstxkj ds ;ksX; gks rFkk mldh vk;q 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks] fdUrq efgyk ds fy;s ;g vk;q lhek 45 o"kZ rd j[kh xbZ gSA tSlk fd /kkjk 9-5-0 esa vafdr gSA tgka iq:"k vkfJr gksxk ogka vk;q dh dksbZ lhek ugha jgsxhA 19. This Court in the matter of “Preety Nillay Matreja” (supra) in para 3, 4 & 5 observed as under: “3. This Court in the matter of “Preety Nillay Matreja” (supra) in para 3, 4 & 5 observed as under: “3. So far as the issue whether a married daughter would fall within the ambit of dependent of the deceased under the provisions of NCWA Chapter-IX, the law as of now stands settled and it is no longer res-integra. This High Court in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others, passed in WPS 4994/2015 decided on 15.03.2016 has already held that a married daughter also would be fall within the ambit of a dependent and rejection of candidature of a married daughter for dependent employment only on the ground of her marital status is bad in law. The said order of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others, have been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The said judgment of the Single Bench dated 15.3.2016 was subjected to challenge in an appeal i.e. Writ Appeal No.246 of 2016 along with couple of other Writ Appeals preferred by the respondent management. The said bunch of Writ Appeals got dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 3.9.2019. The Division Bench while dismissing the Writ Appeals, in paragraph 18, held as under: "18. It is made clear that the writ Court after holding part of Clause9.3.3 of NCWA-VI and Clause 9.4.0 (1) of NCWA - IX to be void and inoperative to the extent it excludes married daughter from consideration for dependent employment, directed appellant company to consider the claim of petitioners therein for dependent employment afresh, in accordance with law. Said direction of the writ Court is only with regard to consideration of claim for dependent employment and to grant the same subject to fulfillment of other requirements of becoming entitled for dependent employment as prescribed in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-IX." 5. Said direction of the writ Court is only with regard to consideration of claim for dependent employment and to grant the same subject to fulfillment of other requirements of becoming entitled for dependent employment as prescribed in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-IX." 5. In view of the aforesaid decisions laid down by the Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench, this Court in the present Writ Petition is of the firm view that the factual matrix of the present case and the contentions put forth by the management in support of their contentions being the same that have been raised and decided in the aforementioned Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeals, the present Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed in similar terms.” 20. In the present case, it is clear that wife of the deceased employee is more than 55 years old and the petitioner is daughter-in-law of deceased employee. Son of deceased employee also died before the death of deceased employee. It is also admitted by the wife of deceased employee that petitioner, Fulsiya Bai and 04 daughters were dependent upon deceased employee Vifal Ram and there is no male member in their family. 21. In the light of above decision and facts of this case, this petition is allowed. Impugned order order dated 17.03.2013 is set-aside, the petitioner is held entitle for compassionate appointment. The respondents shall consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and pass necessary orders, subject to petitioner’s fulfilling other requirement of compassionate appointment within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.