Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

By the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2017 passed in WPC No. 6364/2016, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 27/29.03.2014 passed by the respondent BCCL and directed it to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected as being time barred.

2. His father Ganesh Paswan, a Loader, died on 18.11.2005 in harness leaving behind his two sons including the petitioner and a daughter Sunita Kumari. His mother pre-deceased him on 31.12.1998. As per the writ petitioner’s case, he was minor aged about 12 years at the time of death of his father. On attaining majority on 11.07.2011, he made an application on 21.02.2012 for compassionate appointment. He was asked to submit affidavit, family certificates, etc. by the appellant / Employer which he did on 12.02.2013. However, his claim was rejected on the ground that it was time barred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant BCCL has contended that the writ petitioner had applied after 6-7 years of death of his father when the time limit for making such an application is 18 months from the date of death, as per Circular dated 24.01.2004. Learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon the provisions of Clause 9.5.0(iii) of N.C.W.A-VI under Chapter-IX ‘Social Security’ of the National Coal Wage Agreement in support of their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. Versus Binod Ram Tirkey [2018 (2) J C R 311 (Jhr)]. No application was made on behalf of the petitioner for keeping him on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A-VI. He has further referred to the family certificates enclosed by the petitioner (Annexure-3/1) issued by the same authority i.e. Block Development Officer, Dhanbad on two occasions. Certificate bearing no. 83 dated 03.04.2008 shows the petitioner’s age as 24 years, while certificate bearing no. 27 dated 19.01.2013 shows his age as 19 years. In his affidavit (Annexure-3) submitted with the application, he has stated his age as 19 years as on 18.05.2012. Learned Single Judge has however opined that since the age of the writ petitioner was 12 years at the time of death of his father, the respondent employer ought to have kept him on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of N.C.W.A-VI and offered him compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. The date of birth should have been calculated on the basis of service excerpts or in case of any doubt, as assessed by the Apex Medical Board. In respect of the contention of the petitioner made at para-9 of the writ petition that his elder brother had applied for compassionate appointment, the respondent BCCL in their counter affidavit at para-10, have stated that it is subject to strict proof as respondents are unable to confirm or admit the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned judgment. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Versus Central Coal Field Ltd. and others [(2007) 8 SCC 549, para-17, it has been contended that the appellant employer was obliged to keep the writ petitioner on live roster in terms of Clause 9.5.0 sub-clause (iii) of N.C.W.A-VI as he was minor aged about 12 years on the date of death.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra), the appellant had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 25.10.1997 after the death of his father in harness on 23.02.1997 while working as a Fitter Category-IV under the Central Coalfields Limited. His claim was denied on the premise that he was a minor at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, on attaining majority, he filed an application in the prescribed form on 26.09.1999 which was rejected by order dated 03.08.2000, stating that he was