R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Heard the parties finally. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of Kesho Devi (petitioner No. 2) as it is said that she is now dead.
(2.) MRS . Nivedita, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner -Ram Lakhan died in harness on 12.8.1999 leaving behind his widow -Kesho Devi; two major sons and one married daughter. Mother of the petitioner, namely, Kesho Devi applied for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground on 10.1.2000. Though, the brothers of petitioner filed suits against such claim of employment, but ultimately, the said suits were dismissed for non -prosecution. She further submitted that the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been wrongly rejected on 19.9.2005 on the ground that she crossed the age of 35 years. The respondents have relied on Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA -VI, whereas, as per Clause 9.5.0. (ii), the female dependant up to the age of 45 years can be employed. On the other hand, Mr. Ananda Sen, counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that Clause 9.5.0 (ii) is to be read along with Clause 9.3.4. He further submitted that the relaxation of age up to 45 years was only for 'female spouse' and not for all female dependants. He has further submitted that as per Clause 9.3.3, the wife and unmarried daughter both are dependants, but as per Clause 9.3.4, the upper age limit fixed for employment of the dependants is 35 yeas, and if it is a case of employment of female spouse', the relaxation was given up to 45 years. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner's claim was rightly rejected. He further submitted that petitioner survived all these nine years and, therefore, at this stage the respondents may not be directed to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground.
(3.) IT appears that the father of petitioner died on 12.8.1999. Petitioner's mother filed an application for employment of the petitioner on 10.1.2000. Petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 1.1.1969. One of the petitioner's brothers filed a suit being T.S. No. 12 of 2000, claiming employment in place of his father which was dismissed on 25.5.2001 for non -prosecution. Another brother also filed a suit with similar claim being T.S. No. 32 of 2001 which was also dismissed for non -prosecution on 29.7.2005. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application on 11.8.2005 for her appointment which was rejected by the impugned letter dated 19.9.2005.;