M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. "Whether under National Coal Wage Agreement (in short NCWA) a son-in-law of the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right" is the moot question to be decided in this writ application.

2. The deceased husband of the petitioner, late Sitaram Ram was the permanent employee of the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(in short BCCL). It is stated that on 24.1.2003 while petitioners husband was returning after attending his job, he met with an accident which resulted in his death. After his death the petitioner submitted application for giving compassionate appointment to her son-in-law, Manoj Kumar under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA.

3. The respondent-management took a stand that the son-in-law of the petitioner being not a direct dependant and the petitioner being direct dependant is alive, no appointment could be given to the son-in-law of the deceased. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, further stated that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim compassionate appointment of her son-in- law as he is not a direct dependant. Respondents case is that the petitioner-widow, however, can pursue her claim for monetary compensation as per eligibility under the provisions of NCWA.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI and submitted that under this clause, a son-in-law is entitled to get compassionate appointment. According to the learned Counsel, National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is an award and it has got statutory force.

5. Before appreciating the submission made by the learned Counsel, I would like to discuss some of the principles of law with regard to compassionate appointment as decided by the Supreme Court.

6. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. , the Supreme Court observed that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased before considering his case for compassionate appointment. If it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.

7. In the case of Auditor General of India and Ors. v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao , the fact of the case was that the respondent made an application to the appellant to appoint him as a clerk as his father died in harness while working in the office of the appellant -Auditor General of India, Government of India, Andhra Pradesh. Since he was not considered for appointment, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In appeal, while dismissing, the Division Bench declared that memorandum is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution as the appointment of a descendant is ultra vires Article 16(2). The question that arises for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the memorandum is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. Their Lordships held:

A reading of these clauses in the Memorandum discloses that the appointment on compassionate grounds would not only be to a son, daughter or widow but also to a near relative which was vague or undefined. A person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the bread-winner of the family need compassionate treatment. But all possible eventualities have been enumerated to become a rule to avoid regular recruitment. It would appear that these enumerated eventualities would be breeding ground for misuse of appointments on compassionate grounds. Articles 16(3) to 16(5) provided exceptions. Further exception must be on constitutionally valid and permissible grounds. Therefore, the High