JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

M/s. Central Coalfields Limited is in appeal against the order dated 10th March 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(S) No. 5775 of 2016.

2. In WP(S) No. 5775 of 2016, the learned Single Judge held that age of the writ petitioner mentioned in the Service Sheet excerpts of his father cannot be considered to be full proof for judging the age. The learned Single Judge further held that the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be denied because there is always a possibility of error of ''two years plus/minus''.

3. Tirath Mahto who is the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) made an application for compassionate appointment on 15th July 2014 before the Project Officer, Kuju Colliery. His father Ghanua Mahto was appointed on 29th October 1979 and employed as Pump Khalasi Cat-II in Kuju Colliery, Kuju Area. He had died on 22nd May 2014 while in service under M/s. Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CCL') and after his death the mother of the respondent who was not keeping good health nominated him for employment under Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'NCWA'). His application was processed by CCL and he was directed by the Deputy Manager (Personnel), Kuju Area vide letter dated 19th January 2016 to appear before the Medical Board, Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi for age assessment. On the basis of the radiological and physical examination of the respondent by a Medical Board consisting of six doctors, the age of the respondent was assessed between 35-40 years as on 20th January 2016, that is, the date of his examination by the Medical Board, and vide letter dated 25th April 2016 the Manager (P/MP) informed the staff officer (P&A), Kuju Area that claim of Tirath Mahto for compassionate appointment was rejected because he had crossed the age of 35 years as on 2nd September 2014.

4. Before the writ Court, the respondent placed reliance on his Aadhaar Card and the School Transfer Certificate which record the date of his birth on 16th June 1986, and a reference was made to a declaration by him in the affidavit dated 24th August 2015 to the effect that he was born on 16th June 1986. The orders passed in LPA No. 117 of 2010 and WP(S) No.7576 of 2006 were also pressed before the writ Court on behalf of the respondent.

5. The stand taken by CCL was that on the basis of the Service Sheet excerpts, LTC and Form-A as well as PS-3 which were filled up on different dates at the instance of the father of the respondent the date of birth of the respondent was arrived at 20th July 1978 as per the company’s prevalent norms and procedure, and his having already crossed the maximum age limit for appointment as on the date of the application for compassionate appointment his claim was rejected.

6. The learned writ Court in WP(S) No. 5775 of 2016 has held as under :

“5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves reconsideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are relying on the assessment of the Medical Board and that of the age mentioned in the service excerpts, cannot be considered to be full proof entered into realm of judging the age of applicant. In my considered opinion, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion of definite nature when age can be considered by the nature which is required to be established. There is always possibility of error of two years plus/minus. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied for appointment on compassionate ground. From the records of the case, I find that different age of the petitioner at the instance of his father was recorded at different point of time which itself suggest that age recorded in the d