JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2424 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his mother, who died in harness, having been denied by the respondents, has been refused to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order.

3. The brief facts of the case which need to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Laxmi Devi, was appointed to the post of Ex-Wagon Loader on 18.12.1989, who died in harness on 19.12.2013. The petitioner, being the legal heir, approached the respondent authorities for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground under the provision of Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter to be referred to as NCWA). His case for compassionate appointment was forwarded for consideration. The writ petitioner had annexed copy of Driving License, Aadhar Card, nomination form and L.T.C. form with his application. His case was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of the correct age. The Medical Board assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be 37½ years on the date of assessment and taking into consideration the aforesaid age and keeping the fact into consideration that maximum age for appointment is 35 years, his case was rejected vide order dated 16.06.2015, aggrieved thereof the writ petitioner has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2424 of 2019.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the writ court has taken the ground that if the age of the dependant is medically assessed, the lower age ought to have been considered instead of considering the higher age and as such, the order dated 16.06.2015 is arbitrary, illegal and fit to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent C.C.L. has submitted that the writ petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as he has crossed the maximum age of appointment i.e., more than the age of 35 years.

Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the stand of the respondent C.C.L., has found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge has reiterated the argument and in addition thereto, it has been submitted that it is a case of the nature where no Medical Board ought to have been constituted since there is no discrepancy in the date of birth, rather if the document pertaining to PS-3 (Particulars of Family) is perused, the age of the writ petitioner has been mentioned as 18 years as on 28.05.1998 and if the writ petitioner was of 18 years’ of age as on 28.05.1998, he, at the time of death of his mother, had attained the age of 33 years 06 months and 21 days and, therefore, he being less than the age of 35 years, ought to have been granted appointment on compassionate ground but erroneously the respondent C.C.L. asked the writ petitioner to go for the medical assessment based upon the L.T.C. form but the said L.T.C. form where the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 15 years, does not stipulate that on what date the writ petitioner’s age was 15 years. However, in the affidavit filed on 09.02.2021 the respondent authorities have shown the writ petitioner of the age of 15 years as on 21.11.1991