JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Kumar, J.

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

3. Both the cases are being heard together because the issues in both cases are inter-linked.

4. It is a family dispute between the parties. From perusal of records and argument of the parties, following facts emerges.

5. Sabitri Devi is a widow, who has two sons, namely, Late Tulsi Das and Jainandan @ Raju. The husband of Sabitri Devi had died-in-harness and on that basis his one of the son, namely, Late Tulsi Das has been given compassionate appointment in the year 1995. Unfortunately, Tulsi Das has also died on 17.12.2011 and on death of Tulsi Das, dispute has arisen between the parties, who are parties in the present case. Sabitri Devi has claimed compassionate appointment for her second son, namely, Jainandan @ Raju on the basis of nomination and further she has claimed 100% amount of CMPF, Life Cover Scheme and Gratuity on the basis that she was the only nominee to receive these amounts. So far as pension is concerned, widow-Sabitri Devi wife of Late Tulsi Das is the nominee, and as such no dispute has been raised. There was earlier litigation between the parties and two writ petitions have also been filed. There is determination of gratuity by the authorised officer also.

6. As it is a family dispute and as such, without going into the technicalities of the proceeding, this Court proposed to examine the claim of the parties in accordance with law to settle the dispute among the family members.

7. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, Sabitri Devi has claimed, on the basis of nomination which was in favour of her second son, namely, Jainandan @ Raju and for this purpose learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sabitri Devi has relied upon a judgment reported in 2009 (4) JLJR 105 in the case of Krishna Kumar & Anr. vrs. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi & Ors. and also upon the Annexure-1the Circular.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanju Devi has relied upon a judgment reported in 2006 3 JCR 1 and Rule 9.3.3 and 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A

9. For convenience, Rule 9.3.0, 9.3.3 and 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. is quoted hereinbelow:

9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependents

9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant 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 dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.

9.3.3 the dependant 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.

9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants 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 dependant 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 dependant 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 dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary com