JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the concerned respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of her father-in-law who died in harness on 14.07.2006 during his service period. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father-in-law Ghurwa Sahu was appointed on 18/12/1980 to the post of U.G. Miner/Loader Pump Operator, Kassurgarh Colliery who died in harness on 14/07/2006 during his service period. On the date of the death of deceased employee abovenamed, the petitioner's husband Maniram Sahu survived by his mother, wife and his four children and thereafter his son/husband of the petitioner Maniram Sahu applied for compassionate appointment on 27.11.2007 with affidavit of his mother (wife of Late Ghurwa Sahu). However, when his application was under consideration, he died on 27.10.2012. Hence petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her father-in-law, Late Ghurwa Sahu, which is still under consideration. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being daughter-in-law comes under the definition of the family and due to delay on part of respondents to appoint her husband Mani Ram Sahu, petitioner's whole family are dying due to starvation. He further submits that her husband Maniram Sahu had applied for his Compassionate appointment in 2007 within time but was not given appointment till 2012 and died due to starvation in the year 2012 and thereafter this petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in place of her father-in-law as she has to run the family of her four children. He further submits that the petitioner was asked to appear before the medical board and she appeared on 22.09.2020 and the medical examination of the petitioner was done by respondent authorities but despite completing all the legal formalities the employment has not been given to the petitioner by the respondents till date; as such, he prays for the direction to the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon its Counter affidavit submits that after the death of Late Ghurwa Sahu, his son Maniram Sahu applied for his appointment on compassionate ground. However, before any final decision could be taken on the claim of Maniram Sahu, he also unfortunately died on 17.10.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon its Counter affidavit submits that after the death of Late Ghurwa Sahu, his son Maniram Sahu applied for his appointment on compassionate ground. However, before any final decision could be taken on the claim of Maniram Sahu, he also unfortunately died on 17.10.2012. Thereafter, Smt. Jathiya Bai, the widow of the deceased employee represented for employment of her daughter in law Smt. Sumitra Sahu vide application dated 11.06.2013. So far as the claim of Smt. Sumitra Sahu for compassionate appointment is concerned; it has been stated that her name was not mentioned in the Service Excerpts of Late Ghurwa Sahu-the deceased employee; nor her name was mentioned in the Attestation Form submitted by Late Maniram Sahu and in the Family Certificate dated 22.07.2007 issued by the BDO, Baghmara. It has been submitted by learned counsel that as per the details of the family members mentioned in various documents/certificate at the time of death of the ex-employee is as under:- (i) Smt. Jethya Bai, wife of ex-employee - age 47 years, (ii) Maniram Sahu, son of ex- employee aged 26 years, (iii) Muni Bai, daughter of ex-employee - (Married) - 23 years. Even in the Attestation Form, Late Maniram Sahu has not declared Smt. Sumitra Sahu as his wife in the family details column. 6. He further draws attention of this Court upon the Clause-9.3.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, and submits that employment would be provided to one dependent of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The same is extracted hereinbelow: "9.3.3 - The dependent 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." By referring the aforesaid clause, he contended that Smt. Jethiya Bai was the direct dependent of Late Ghurwa Sahu and was alive at the time of death of the ex-employee and as such, she was eligible to be considered for employment/monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 7. 7. He further submits that the widow of the deceased employees namely Jathiya Bai also died on 10.03.2018 and the claim of Smt. Sumitra Sahu was forwarded to the competent authority who in turn placed the matter before the Functional Directors (FDs) of the company. After detailed deliberation the FD's advised to proceed with the proposal for giving monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA. Accordingly, after competent approval, Block II Area of M/s BCCL paid Rs. 14,97,938/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Eight) to Smt. Sumitra Sahu, daughter in law of Late Ghuru Sahu as Monetary Compensation (From December 2007 to February 2018) in lieu of compassionate appointment. (Annexure B to the Counter affidavit), as such the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going though document annexed with the respective affidavit it appears that the petitioner's father-in-law Ghurwa Sahu was appointed on 18/12/1980 to the post of U.G. Miner/Loader Pump Operator, Kassurgarh Colliery. He died in harness on 14/07/2006 during his service period. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband Maniram Sahu applied for compassionate appointment on 27.11.2007 with affidavit of his mother (wife of Late Ghurwa Sahu); however, when his application was under consideration, he also died on 27.10.2012. Hence petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her father-in-law (Late Ghurwa Sahu). It further appears that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the Service Excerpts of Late Ghurwa Sahu the deceased employee, nor her name was mentioned in the Attestation Form submitted by Late Maniram Sahu and in the Family, Certificate dated 22.07.2007 issued by the BDO, Baghmara. 9. It is further evident from the documents annexed and the averments made; the claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority and in the factual background the Respondent Company decided to give monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA. Accordingly, the same was paid to the petitioner. Having regards to the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court does not find any error in the decision of the Respondents. On this issue, it is profitable to refer the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.L VS BIPIN MURMU & ANR reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1535 wherein at para 8 to 10 held as under: “8. On this issue, it is profitable to refer the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.L VS BIPIN MURMU & ANR reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1535 wherein at para 8 to 10 held as under: “8. It is apparent from bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses that employment would be provided by the appellant to one dependant of an employee who died in harness. The rider added is that insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Clause 9.5.0, which provides for employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workers who died in harness while in service or who were declared medically unfit and states clearly in sub-clause (ii) that in case the female dependant crosses 45 years of age, she would be entitled only to monetary compensation per month and not to employment. 9. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that if a female dependant crosses the age bar of 45 years and not be considered fit for being granted employment, then Clause 9.3.3 would come into play is fallacious. As is apparent on a reading of Clause 9.3.3, it is only if no direct dependant is available for employment, would the brother, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, son-in-law residing with the deceased and wholly dependant on his earnings be considered for compassionate appointment. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the wife of the deceased was alive and she is still alive. Since she had crossed the age bar of 45 years on the date of the demise of her husband, i.e. 11th August, 2005, she was entitled for being granted monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 and not to employment. Therefore, it was a fit case where the appellant ought to have granted monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased employee, which for reasons best known to it, was not done. A perusal of the communication dated 09th March, 2006, addressed by the appellant to the daughter of the deceased simply states that there is no provision in the appellant-Company to provide service to a married daughter. A perusal of the communication dated 09th March, 2006, addressed by the appellant to the daughter of the deceased simply states that there is no provision in the appellant-Company to provide service to a married daughter. The appellant being a model employer, ought to have stated in the very same letter that the widow of the deceased employee, who was alive, would be entitled to grant of monetary compensation as per the Rules.” 10 In the instant case also at the time of death of deceased employee his wife was alive and since she had crossed the age bar of 45 years on the date of the demise of her husband, i.e. 14.07.2006, she was entitled for being granted monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 and not to employment. Since the monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA has already been paid to the petitioner; as such, no further relief can be granted by this court. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ application is dismissed. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.