JUDGMENT : Prayer 1. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2023, by which, the prayer for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected, by dismissing the writ petition by not interfering with the decision so taken by the respondents’- authorities, as contained in letter no.2423 dated 17.11.2021. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that petitioner’s mother Late Chandar Muni Devi was appointed vide letter no. 5322, dated 26.11.2011 as trainee and was confirmed on the post of TR Cat.-I (General Mazdoor) at Kedla Underground Mines of CCL. Petitioner’s name finds place as a dependent in the service book having age as on 18.06.2010 to be 12 years. Writ Petitioner’s mother died in harness on 11.01.2015 and she informed the same to the concerned Project Officer on 13.01.2015. At the time of death of mother, all the children were minor and as such, being the eldest daughter/child of the deceased, submitted an application dated 25.03.2015 for providing her employment. However, the said application was rejected by the management on the ground that petitioner was minor and as such not eligible for appointment. The writ petitioner was further informed that she being daughter, her name cannot be kept in live roster as per provisions of NCWA. She has filed another application requesting therein to keep name of her brother Roshan Kumar Munda in live roster for grant of compassionate appointment as per para 9.5.0 of NCWA. The writ petitioner’s brother was asked for medical examination wherein his age as on date of death of his mother was assessed to be less than 12 years i.e. 11 years and 27 days and as such, the management declined to keep his name in live roster. Upon attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner again filed an application on 12.08.2020 for grant of compassionate appointment however the same was rejected vide letter no. 2423, dated 17.11.2021. Upon attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner again filed an application on 12.08.2020 for grant of compassionate appointment however the same was rejected vide letter no. 2423, dated 17.11.2021. Thereafter, the writ petitioner’s brother Roshan Kumar Munda filed a writ petition vide W.P.(S) No. 2287 of 2022 but during pendency of the writ petition, he died and the writ petition was withdrawn. Since the writ petitioner has attained the age of majority and even then, she has been denied appointment on compassionate ground, hence, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2023 has been filed. 4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the mother of the writ petitioner late Chandar Muni Devi was appointed on 26.11.2011 and was confirmed on the post of TR Cat.-1 (General Mazdoor) and while in service she died in harness on 11.01.2015. The appellant, being the eldest daughter of her deceased mother, has made an application on 25.03.2025 for providing her employment. But the said application was rejected by the Management on the ground that the writ petitioner was minor and as such, not eligible for appointment. The further information was furnished to the appellant, writ petitioner that another ground has also been taken that since she is the daughter and as such, not eligible to be kept under the live roster, as per the provision provided under Clause-9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (in short ‘N.C.W.A.’). 5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that since she is the daughter of her deceased mother and as such, her brother has made an application for consideration of his case for keeping him in live roster, but his application was also rejected on the ground that he was assessed to be less than 12 years, i.e., 11 years and 27 days. 6. The brother of the writ petitioner has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2022 challenging the order of rejection but during the pendency of writ petition, he died and as such, the writ petition was withdrawn. 7. 6. The brother of the writ petitioner has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2022 challenging the order of rejection but during the pendency of writ petition, he died and as such, the writ petition was withdrawn. 7. The appellant, writ petitioner, thereafter, has made fresh application for consideration of her candidature, since, by the time she has attained majority and crossed the age of 18 years, minimum age prescribed under N.C.W.A. but the said request was rejected, vide order dated 17.11.2021 by taking two grounds, i.e., her candidature was considered and rejected by not keeping her in live roster since there is no provision to keep the daughter of the deceased employee in live roster and another ground has been taken so far as the issue re-agitated for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority, i.e., after completion of the age of 18 years. The reason has been assigned that the majority has been taken into consideration on the date of death and admittedly, on the date of death, the age of the writ petitioner was less than 18 years. 8. The said order has been challenged by filing the writ petition but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision taken by the authority dated 17.11.2021 on the ground that the prayer for request for appointment on compassionate ground was already rejected and as such, the writ petitioner has been held to be not qualified as per the provision of N.C.W.A., the said order is under challenge by filing the instant appeal. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner 9. Mr. Diwakar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order that: - (i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the offer of appointment which is to be made under the provision of NCWA is a beneficial piece of instrument created by the respondent-CCL and as such, the same is legally to be construed and in that view of the matter, instead of going into the hyper- technicality, the predicament of the family ought to have been taken into consideration the hardship which was being faced due to sudden demise of bread earner, the mother. The said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order dated 17.11.2021, as also, the same has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error. (ii) Another ground has been taken that there cannot be any gender discrimination by making distinction between male and female by not keeping the female dependent of the family in live roster. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge therefore suffers from an error and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL 11. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: - (i) It has been contended that the case of the appellant has been considered on earlier occasion, i.e., immediately after demise of her mother on consideration of decision taken under clause-9.5.0 of NCWA but since she was minor and there is no provision under NCWA to keep the female dependent of the family in live roster. The said decision has been taken on the basis of an application filed on 25.03.2015. The said application was rejected on the ground that she was minor and subsequently, a fresh application was filed by her brother to keep the son of the deceased mother in live roster but he was not found to be eligible as he was having less than 12 years. (ii) The claim of the brother of the writ petitioner was also rejected, against which, he has preferred writ petitioner being W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2022 but during the pendency of writ petitioner, the brother of the writ petitioner had died and as such, the writ petition was withdrawn. (ii) The claim of the brother of the writ petitioner was also rejected, against which, he has preferred writ petitioner being W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2022 but during the pendency of writ petitioner, the brother of the writ petitioner had died and as such, the writ petition was withdrawn. (iii) It has been contended that the writ petitioner again has renewed the request for her appointment on compassionate ground, since, by that time, she has attained the age of majority, i.e., the age of 18 years but the same has been considered and on consideration of the issue that the eligibility is required to be there of the dependent of one or the other deceased employee on the date of death and admittedly, on the date of death, the age of the writ petitioner was less than 18 years. (iv) The decision has been taken by passing the impugned order on 17.11.2021, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error since the writ petitioner was not eligible on the date of death of the deceased employee which has also taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, which led the learned Single Judge not to interfere with the impugned decision, hence, the impugned judgment/order cannot be said to suffer from an error. (v) In addition thereto, the ground has also been taken that admittedly, the death took place in the year 2015 and now it is 2025, hence, after lapse of 10 years, the very purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground, is to provided, has lost its force. Analysis 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment/order as also the pleading made on behalf of the parties. 13. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner was the daughter of the deceased employee, namely, late Chandar Muni Devi, who has died in harness on 11.01.2015. 14. 13. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner was the daughter of the deceased employee, namely, late Chandar Muni Devi, who has died in harness on 11.01.2015. 14. It is also the admitted fact that on the date of death of the mother, the age of the writ petitioner was less than 18 years, i.e., 16 years, 6 months and 23 days but her candidature was not considered to keep her in live roster in view of the provision as contained under Clause-9.5.0 of the NCWA, wherein, the female dependent of the deceased employee has not been decided to keep in the live roster. Her candidature was rejected. Her brother has come by filing an application but he was also found to be less than 12 years of age, which is the less than the age required for keeping the minor dependent of the deceased employee in the live roster. 15. The claim of the brother of the writ petitioner has been rejected, thereafter, fresh application was filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that she, by that time, has attained the age of majority, i.e., the age of 18 years, the minimum age prescribed under Clause-9.3.0 of NCWA. The same has also been rejected which is the issue fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge, wherein, no interference has been shown, against which, the present appeal has been filed. 16. The question therefore requires consideration in the aforesaid admitted facts herein is: - (i) “As to whether the claim of the writ petitioner can be considered once her claim has already been rejected by refusing to keep her in live roster on the ground that there is no provision to keep the female dependent of the deceased employee in live roster. (ii) Whether the appointment denied to be given in favour of the writ petitioner after lapse of six years from the date of death, claiming the said appointment that by the time of two decisions taken by the respondent CCL, she became eligible to get the appointment on compassionate ground under the provision of NCWA. (iii) Whether the eligibility is to be taken into consideration on the date of death or on the date of making application.” 17. All the three issues are being interlinked and are being taken up together for its consideration. 18. (iii) Whether the eligibility is to be taken into consideration on the date of death or on the date of making application.” 17. All the three issues are being interlinked and are being taken up together for its consideration. 18. We are conscious with the law that the appointment on compassionate ground is exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but even then, the Scheme has been formulated by one or the other Establishments to provide appointment on compassionate ground by way of piece of social security measure. 19. Herein also, the respondent CCL has entered into an agreement with the Union formerly known as “National Coal Wage Agreement” (NCWA). 20. It requires to refer herein by taking aid of the preamble of the National Coal Wage Agreement, which is a bipartite agreement entered in between the authorities of the Coal India Limited and the representatives from the different trade unions, that the said agreement having been reached other than in course of conciliation and hence, it will be said to be an agreement entered in pursuance to the provision of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 21. Since the National Coal Wage Agreement which is under the provision of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such, it would have a binding effect upon the parties having its statutory fervor. 22. The said aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , wherein, it has been held that the validity of NCWA has been accepted to be of statutory fervor. NCWA is having various conditions based upon the agreement entered in between the parties. 23. Herein, the relevant is Clause-9.3.0 and Clause-9.5.0 of NCWA, since, the same are necessary to be discussed herein. 24. Clause-9.3.0 stipulates with respect to condition, in a case where the deceased employee has died in harness and the dependent has defined under Clause-9.3.1, will have an opportunity to make an application for consideration of candidature for appointment on compassionate ground, subject to eligibility condition, i.e., the age in between 18 to 35 years. 25. 24. Clause-9.3.0 stipulates with respect to condition, in a case where the deceased employee has died in harness and the dependent has defined under Clause-9.3.1, will have an opportunity to make an application for consideration of candidature for appointment on compassionate ground, subject to eligibility condition, i.e., the age in between 18 to 35 years. 25. Clause-9.5.0 speaks with respect to a condition where the dependent of the deceased employee is minor and hence, a provision has been carved out in the said para that a dependent particularly the male dependent will have an opportunity to make an application to keep his name in the live roster if he is less than 12 years and subsequently, it was enhanced to 15 years. 26. The female dependent has not been given any space under clause-9.5.0, for ready reference, clause-9.3.0 and clause-9.5.0 are being referred as under:- “ 9.3.0. Provision of Employment to Dependents 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependent 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 dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 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 directed dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased. 9.3.4 the dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as give in Clause 9.5.0. 9.3.4 the dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as give in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” “ 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.4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause 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.3,000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 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 dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (I) & (ii) above. This will be effective form 1.1.2000.” (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years. (v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised.” 27. This will be effective form 1.1.2000.” (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years. (v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised.” 27. In the backdrop of the aforesaid right said to be created in favour of the dependent of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner, being the female dependent of her deceased mother which has died in harness on 11.01.2015 has made an application to keep her in live roster, since, she was at that time, 16 years and 6 months. But her claim was rejected by taking into consideration the stipulation made in clause-9.5.0 of the NCWA wherein, there is no space to keep the female dependent of the deceased employee in live roster. 28. The writ petitioner has admitted that order and thereafter, her brother has made an application for keeping him in the live roster under clause-9.5.0 but since he was having the age of 11 years and 27 days, i.e., less than the age of 12 years as required during the relevant time, his candidature was rejected. 29. The writ petitioner, by that time, since has attained the age of majority, hence, again made an application for consideration of her candidature as per the provision of clause-9.3.0 of NCWA. 30. The question herein is that once the candidature has been rejected of a candidate said to be the dependent of the deceased employee who had died in harness under the provision of clause- 9.5.0. Is it available to such candidate to again made an application under the provision as contained under Clause-9.5.0 of the NCWA? 31. Admittedly in the NCWA, there is no provision to shift from Clause-9.5.0 to Clause-9.3.0 that too once the claim has been rejected of a candidate under Clause-9.5.0. 32. The rejection under Clause-9.5.0 so far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned based upon the application dated 25.03.2015 on the ground that she is not eligible for consideration since she is a female dependent which has been admitted by the writ petitioner since the said order has never been challenged before the Higher Forum. 33. 32. The rejection under Clause-9.5.0 so far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned based upon the application dated 25.03.2015 on the ground that she is not eligible for consideration since she is a female dependent which has been admitted by the writ petitioner since the said order has never been challenged before the Higher Forum. 33. The issue is already settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be taken into consideration on the basis of eligibility, if one or the other candidates, is having on the date of death. This is being said on the basis of the fact that there cannot be any contrary opinion of this, otherwise that would not have any provision as provided under Clause-9.5.0 to keep the minor in live roster, rather, the period of limitation of the substantial period would have been there to make an application like that of in the State or in any other establishment to make an application within the period of 5 years or more or even less but there is no provision, rather, there is provision to make an application initially within the period of six months, thereafter, it was enhanced to one year and again it was enhanced to 1 ½ year. 34. The said issue of limitation has also been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra), wherein, the validity of the said decision taken by the respondent has been approved on the principle that there cannot be any indefinite period to make an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground. 35. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot take contrary view that on the date of death, the writ petitioner has attained her majority, i.e., the age of 18 years, since, she has made an application for keeping herself in live roster which itself suggests that she was minor at that time. 36. 35. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot take contrary view that on the date of death, the writ petitioner has attained her majority, i.e., the age of 18 years, since, she has made an application for keeping herself in live roster which itself suggests that she was minor at that time. 36. Since she was having no eligibility so far as the age criteria is concerned and as such, when she has made an application second time under Clause-9.3.0, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021 stating inter-alia therein that she was minor at the time of death, then the Management is not in a position to redress the claim of the petitioner as on the date considering that now she has attained the age of majority. 37. If the interference will be shown in the order dated 17.11.2021, the very scope of Clause-9.5.0 and 9.3.0 will lose its validity. 38. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid legal and factual aspect and adverting to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the issue of eligibility on the date of death of the deceased mother of the writ petitioner as also the period of time which has been elapsed from the date of death to the date of passing of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, i.e., after lapse of 9 years and by now, it is almost 10 years. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent judgment has taken into consideration the issue of delay and has observed that the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing, as has been held in the judgment rendered in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 384 , wherein, at paragraph-9, it has been held as under:- “9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the respondent's son are not justified. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the respondent who are the dependants of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependants of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after the respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 40. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, requires no interference. 41. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 42. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.