JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal assailing the final judgment and order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment of appellant No. 2 was dismissed, on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI (for brevity “NCWA”) by the date his claim came to be considered.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 2 is the son of Late Ruspelli Kistaiya, who served as a Dozer Operator with the respondent–Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years and died in harness on 17.12.2020. On the date of death of the employee, appellant No. 2 was aged 34 years, 10 months and 12 days, his date of birth being 05.02.1986.

4. On 31.12.2020, the respondent–Western Coalfields Limited issued the Standard Operating Procedure (for brevity “SOP”) / Circular Reference No. 1416/2020-21, providing procedure for on-boarding of the dependents of ex-employees under compassionate grounds.

5. Appellant No. 1 (widow) approached the authorities on 03.01.2021 regarding the payment/dues and other service benefits to be received after her husband’s death, on which date appellant No. 2 was aged 34 years, 10 months and 29 days. Appellant No. 3 is the younger son of the deceased employee and has furnished a No-Objection Certificate in favour of appellant No. 2. On 04.01.2021, respondent No. 4 issued a communication, being Reference No. 1211/2020-21, directing appellant No. 2 to undergo police verification for compassionate appointment.

6. Appellant No. 2 completed 35 years of age on 05.02.2021. The police verification and document verification were completed on 11.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, respectively.

7. Thereafter, appellant No. 2 submitted the prescribed pro forma application on 28.05.2021. The respondent-authorities acknowledged the receipt of the submitted formal application on 14.06.2021 as the relevant date.

8. Ultimately on 03.02.2023, the respondent-authorities rejected the claim of appellant No. 2 on the ground that appellant No. 2 had crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA. The rejection order was communicated to appellant No. 1 on 20.05.2023.

9. Aggrieved thereby, appellant No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2024 before the High Court.

10. Vide the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2025, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the rejection holding that age had to be reckoned on the date on which the claim of appellant No. 2 was considered, on which date appellant No. 2 had already crossed the age of 35 years prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA.

11. Aggrieved by the impugned final judgment and order of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

12. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, made the following submissions:

12.1. The impugned judgment proceeds on an erroneous premise by determining the age eligibility of appellant No. 2 with reference to the date of consideration of the claim, whereas Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA merely prescribes that the dependent should not be more than 35 years of age and does not specify the relevant cut-off date. It was contended that, in the absence of any express stipulation, the age has to be reckoned either from the date of death of the employee or, at the latest, from the date of initiation of the compassionate appointment process. On both these dates, namely 17.12.2020 and 04.01.2021, appellant No. 2 was admittedly within the prescribed age limit and, therefore, the subsequent rejection on the ground that he had crossed the age limit by the time the respondent-authorities considered the application is legally unsustainable.

12.2. Learned senior counsel further submitte