ORDER

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 9.7.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that there is no provision in the respondent-establishment to grant compassionate appointment to a married daughter.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that father of the petitioner late Shri Abdul Latif Siddiqui, who was working on the post of Dumper Operator (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman'), died in the year 2008 while in service. Thereafter, elder son of the workman namely Mohammad Sajid Siddiqui was granted compassionate appointment in the year, 2009 on the post of General Majdoor. Unfortunately, Mohammad Sajid Siddiqui also died in a road accident. After the death of Mohammad Sajid Siddiqui, younger son of workman namely Shri Zakir Siddiqui was granted appointment on compassionate basis on the post of General Majdoor Category-1 vide order dated 1.11.2016. The workman has two sons and one daughter alongwith wife in his family. After the death of father and elder brother, Zakir Siddiqui was taking care of the family as he was granted compassionate appointment by the respondents. Unfortunately, he also died. Thereafter, the wife of the workman submitted a representation to the authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the only surviving child i.e. petitioner No.2 Ku. Sulekha Siddiqui. The application was rejected vide order dated 9.7.2021 on the ground that Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) forbids grant of compassionate appointment to a daughter, and, therefore, the same cannot be granted.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order and also the provisions of the Policy of the respondent-establishment under which Clause 9.3.3 prohibiting the married daughter from the benefit of grant of compassionate appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision passed by the Full Bench in W.A.No.756/2019 (Minakshi Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L and others). [Reported in 2020 (1) JLJ 335] Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in LPA No.617/2017 (Madhubala Sinha v. M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. and other), in which Hon’ble High Court has categorically held as under:-

“24, So far as the sister is concerned, we find from a plain reading of Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA quoted above that the brother of the deceased workman dying unmarried, if fully dependent upon him, is also entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In that view of the matter, there is no reason as to why, sister, whether married or unmarried, should be deprived of such benefit. If a sister is denied the benefit of compassionate appointment only on the ground that she is not included as dependent under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA, this is a clear case of gender bias and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, also on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, we are tempted to quote section 13 of the General Clauses Act, even though the General Clauses Act relates to Central Acts and Regulations. We are referring to this section as admittedly the respondent Coal India Ltd is also ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and section 13 of the General Clauses Act aims at non-discrimination only on the basis of gender. In other words, it prohibits gender discrimination. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act reads as follows:-

"13. Gender and number.- In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context;—

(1) words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and

(2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa.”

A pla