1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

               “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the reasoned order contained in letter no. Pari.Pada/ Govindpur/ OC/Ka.Vi.- 2023/1070 dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure- 13) passed by Project Officer, Swang Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited whereby the claim of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground rejected.

               AND

               (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter issued vide Reference No. PD/MP/9.3.0/Regret/Kathara/2021/44 dated 6.1.2021 (Annexure-9 series) issued under the signature of Chief Manager (P/MP) Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi with approval of the competent authority whereby the age of the petitioner assessed and determined as 37 ½ years on 28.10.2020, considering the date of birth of the petitioner as 28.4.1983 and the petitioner held not entitled to claim compassionate employment as per Provision of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) being more than 35 years of age on date of application (30.7.2020).

               AND

               (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the letter issued vide Reference No. PD/MP/9.3.0 / 2021/464 dated 27.2.2021 (Annexure-10) whereby with reference to the representation of the petitioner to the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited dated 12.2.2021 regarding age assessment, the Chief Manager (P/MP) Central Coalfields Limited (Head Quarter), Ranchi has informed the petitioner that his age was assessed by the Age Assessment Board, Gandhi Nagar Hospital on 28.10.2020 in which his age was assessed more than 35 years and as such his application for re-age assessment cannot be considered.

               AND

               (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner in light of valid, admissible and statutory documents viz. the entry made in the service excerpt/record on 24.6.1989 as well as the Birth Certificate dated 22.8.2012. the Aadhar Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, E. Permanent Account No. Card and accordingly compassionate employment of the petitioner be made in the service of the respondent company in place of his father late Bhuneshwar Prajapati who died in harness.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The father of this petitioner, who was employed in the Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.), dies in harness on 30.05.2020.

               3.1. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. He furnished a certificate from the School, which suggests that his age was less than 35 years as on the date of death of his father. Be it noted that the maximum age for appointment in the Central Coalfields Limited is 35 years.

               3.2. As the compassionate appointment was not granted, this petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.3092 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2023 and was remanded back to the Authorities to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner afresh, on the ground that the School Leaving Certificate which was pivotal in considering the claim for compassionate appointment, was not brought to the notice of the Authorities.

               3.3. Be it noted that the petitioner was sent for a medical examination and his age was assessed within the age bracket of 35 - 40 years, by the Board. Thus, the respondents by taking the midpoint, had assessed the age of the petitioner as 37 ½ years, which is more than the maximum age prescribed for appointment, and rejected the claim.

4. After going through the records, I find that there was some dispute and doubt in respect of the School, from where the petitioner had studied. By virtue of the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in this case by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the respondents after an enquiry have filed an affidavit stating therein that the School is running since 1991, but so far as the date of birth of this petitioner is concerned, no documents, materials, register etc., were produced to come to a concrete finding as what is the age of this petitioner.

5. From the aforesaid fact, it is quite clear that the document which the petitioner is relying upon to establish that his age was less than 35 years at the time of death of his father, was disputed by the respondents. The respondents are relying upon their medical examination Report, which suggests that the petitioner was in the age bracket of 35 – 40 years. The respondents had taken the midpoint of 37 ½ years, and thus rejected the claim of the petitioner.

6. The issue as to what would be the age for grant of compassionate appointment, when the midpoint is taken, as calculated by the respondents, has been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2790 of 2020 (Nand Lal Soren Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 02.04.2025. This Court while allowing the said writ petition, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Dubey Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. in (Civil Appeal No.(S). 908 of 2025) (decided on 21st January, 2025), wherein it has been held that the assessment of the Medical Board in assessing the age, cannot be said to be accurate.

               6.1. This Court further referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 01.01.2010 in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL), wherein it was held that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground of variation of age. It was also held that there is a possibility of error of plus minus two years in age calculation.

               6.2. This Court also referred to the judgment dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L) & Ors.), wherein it has been held that since the provision of compassionate appointment is a Social Security Scheme, the same has to be interpreted in the light of object it intends to achieve and in case of variation of age, the age which is favourable to the applicant, has to be considered. It is necessary to quote para-7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment of Nand Lal Soren (supra), which reads as follows:-

               “7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Dubey vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others in Civil Appeal No.(S). 908 of 2025 decided on 21st January, 2025 has held that the opinion of the medical board regarding age does not give accurate estimation. In paragraphs 9 and 10 it was held as under:-

               “9. A Medical Board by using scientific methods can never make an accurate estimation of the age of a human being. It is always an estimate which can never be accurate.

               10. In the present case, the relevant date for deciding the age of the appellant is 31st July, 2013. We have perused the certificate of the Medical Board dated 10th December, 2014. The Medical Board has recorded that the recommendation is based on physical and radiological examination of the appellant. It is not necessary to record detailed reasons to hold that it is unsafe to make an accurate estimation of the age on the basis of physical examination or radiological examination or ossification test. These methods have their own limitations. In fact, the opinion of the Medical Board records that the age of the appellant as on 31st December, 2014 was in between 35-40 years. Going by the said opinion, in July 2013, it is quite possible that the age of the appellant was less than 35 years.”

                8. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case also has held that the statements made by the employee in the service records cannot be treated as conclusive and in case the respondents do not doubt the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate the same can be accepted as valid proof of age. In para 11 it was held as follows:-

               “11. As no dispute has been raised regarding genuineness of the school leaving certificate dated 15th July, 2013, we find that on the date on which the appellant’s father was superannuated, the appellant’s age was less than 35 years. The statements made by his father while stating the family particulars of the appellant cannot be conclusive. Moreover, in none of these statements, the precise date of birth of the appellant has been mentioned by his father.”

               9. Further a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) has held that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground of variation of age. It was observed that there always remains a possibility of error of plus-minus two years in age calculation. The petitioner was found to be little more than 35 years of age, which is evident from the averment made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 20, therefore, the petitioner must be given the benefit of possibility of error in the medical board’s assessment of age.

               10. As N.C.W.A. is a social security scheme it has to be construed liberally. This court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors) disposed of on 10.02.2021, has observed that since the provision of compassionate appointment is a social security scheme it has to be interpreted in the light of object it intends to achieve and in case of variation in age, the age which is favourable to the applicant has to be considered.

               Thus, considering the aforesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the lower limit of age assessed by the Board should be considered which is 35 years in this case. A person of 35 year is entitled to be employed in the Company.”

7. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, as referred by the respondents’ counsel in the case of Mukesh Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. (L.P.A. No.168 of 2021) [decided on 26th October, 2021], is not applicable in this case, as the same is in respect of fixing of date of birth, which is not relevant in this case. Further the judgment dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.429 of 2017 (Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Prashant Kumar Oraon & Ors.), is also not relevant in the facts of this case.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order as contained in Letter No.  2023@1070 dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside.

               8.1. I am of the further view that the lower limit of age assessed by the Board should be considered, which is 35 years in this case. Since the petitioner was aged about 35 years, he is entitled for appointment in the Central Coalfields Limited, on compassionate ground.

               8.2. The respondents are directed to pass consequential order within four weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.