Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court on rejection of her claim for monetary compensation on 10.9.2010 passed by the respondent-General Manager, BCCL, Gobindpur, Dhanbad. She has also sought for a direction upon the respondents to pay monetary compensation due to her from the date of death of her husband i.e. on 21.1.1997 till the date she attained the age of 60 years in the year 2008. The claim of the petitioner for monetary compensation has been rejected on the grounds that her option was submitted in the year 2010 and she has already attained 60 years of age in the year 2008 itself. Therefore, she would not be entitled for payment of monetary compensation according to the provision of the National Coal Wages Agreement.

3. There is a little background to the whole controversy, which is narrated herein-below for better appreciation of the facts of the case.

4. On the death of her husband on 21.1.1997, the petitioner herself made a claim for compassionate appointment. The respondent vide Annexure-2, dated 6.6.1997, had, however intimated that she was already 49 years of age and she would be entitled to seek monetary compensation in terms of the NCWA for which she was required to submit her option. The petitioner, however, chose to pursue the case of compassionate appointment of her son-in-law, which was not being considered. Therefore, she moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5430 of 2004. In the said writ petition through I.A. No. 2184 of 2004 (Annexure-3), she had also made an alternative prayer to be considered in the following terms:-

"That the petitioner further prays that in case of denial of appointment of the petitioner's son-in-law on compassionate grounds, the respondents may in alternative be directed to pay to the petitioner the entire arrears and current monthly monetary compensation with suitable interest as per the provisions of Clause 9.5,0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI."

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the claim for compassionate appointment was not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.1.2010, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, but this Court observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to accept the offer for monetary compensation as given by the respondents. Thereafter, on submission of her application, Annexure-5 dated 23.2.2010, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Etwaria Devi vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2008(1) JCR 403(Jhr.) in support of her contention that she is at-least entitled to the monetary compensation on the death of her husband till she attained 60 years of age.

6. The respondents, on their part, have contested the claim taking inter alia following grounds; that option is to be exercised for availing the benefit of monetary compensation by the dependent. The respondents themselves advised her to do so vide Annexure-2 in June, 1997. She filed a writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2010. In such circumstances, the benefit of monetary compensation is not accruable once the incumbent-Dependant applicant has attained the age of 60 years. The petitioner has reached the age of 60 years in the year 2008 itself, therefore, her claim for monetary compensation has been rejected.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. It is true that initially the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment for herself in June, 1997 itself. She being 49 years of age was advised to opt for monetary compensation by the respondents themselves vide Annexure-2 dated 6.6.1997. However, it is also true that she later on was pursuing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5430 of 2004 for compassionate appointment of her son-in-