ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.2442 of 2021, the petitioner is in appeal.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was working on the post of Senior Mechanic (Token No.3004) with the respondents. He died during the course of employment on 10.7.2020. By the application dated 15.9.2020, the widow of the deceased made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to her daughter. On the very next day, the respondents wrote a letter to the widow advising her to take compensation instead of a job for her daughter. Nothing happened thereafter. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner wrote a letter dated 1.10.2020 indicating that her daughter is married, which information by mistake, was not provided to them earlier. By the communication dated 6.10.2020, the respondents informed her that there is no provision in the Company rules to provide compassionate appointment to a married daughter. Since no appointment was made, a letter was once again addressed on 13.10.2020 and thereafter again on 18.12.2020 seeking grant of compassionate appointment. Since the same was not done, the instant writ petition was filed seeking to quash the impugned letter dated 6.10.2020 and for a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the daughter, namely, the petitioner.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed.

4. Mr. R.K. Chand, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That the subject matter involved herein is similar to the one that was considered by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisarh at Bilaspur in W.P. No.4994 of 2015 (Smt. Asha Pandey v. Coal India Ltd. and others). By the order dated 15.3.2016 the petition was allowed by directing that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI read with Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IX be read in the manner to include the married daughter also as the one eligible for appointment. The SLP filed against the said order has also been dismissed. That the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisarh and has wrongly dismissed the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. He contends that the Memorandum of Agreement does not provide for grant of compassionate appointment to a married daughter. Hence, it is pleaded that the writ appeal be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsels.

7. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the learned Single Judge held in para 23 of the judgment that the interest of the widow was taken care of by the policy which provided for monetary compensation. That such a monetary compensation was offered to the petitioner’s mother as is evident from the communication vide Annexure P-3 dated 16.9.2020. Therefore, since the interest of the widow was sought to be taken care of, the dependency cannot be extended to any arbitrary limit.

The said para reads as follows :--

“23. In the present case, primarily female dependent on the deceased employee is Smt. Lalita Singh and not the present petitioner. Interest of Smt. Lalita Singgh is taken care of by the policy, which provides for payment of monetary compensation and that was offered to the petitioner’s mother as is evident from Annexure P-3. Therefore, in terms of the offer of monthly monetary compensation during life time of the widow of the deceased, aspect of dependency of widow being taken care of, dependency cannot be extended to any arbitrary limit, so to include married daughter and son-in-law of deceased employee in absence of any cogent material available on record.”

Furthermore, it was held in para 25 as follows:-

“25. Thus, though the law laid down by the Chhattisgarh High Court is respectfully accepted for its laudab