JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length on various dates. Concerned lawyers had no objection with regard to the proceeding which was held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter was reserved for Judgment and is being disposed of finally.

PRAYER

2. In the instant writ application prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017, whereby the respondent no. 7 declined claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of overage. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation/objection dated 22.05.2018 against the said order of rejection and further to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground within a specified period.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner’s father namely Budhan Bhuiyan was a permanent employee of the respondent no. 1 and was working to the post of Operator in Kathara Washery and died in harness on 28.07.2014. Thereafter, on 20.07.2015, petitioner’s mother namely Basanti Devi made an application nominating him for employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. Petitioner also submitted employment proposal with PAN Card and School Leaving Certificate showing to have left school after passing Class-VII. His date of birth was recorded as 16.03.1986 and he left the school on 25.12.1995 and as such, his age was less than 35 years on the date of filing of application on 20.07.2015.

4. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and by letter no. 1038, dated 06.09.2016, the same was forwarded by the Staff Officer (Personnel and Administration) Kathara before the respondent no. 4 for employment of the petitioner. However, by impugned letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017, the respondent no. 7 communicated to the Staff Officer to the effect that the Medical Board, after assessing age of the petitioner on 25.01.2017, found it in between 35 – 40 years and by taking midpoint, petitioner’s age was assessed to be 35 years 11 months and 25 days and, therefore, his claim for employment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of over age. Thereafter, petitioner raised objection before the respondent no. 6 with a copy to other respondents vide its representation dated 22.05.2018 contending therein that his date of birth as recorded in different documents is 16.03.1986 and as such he was just 28 years of age on the date of filing of application. However, petitioner has not yet been provided any intimation regarding decision on his objection and as such he has preferred instant writ petition.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondents have acted with a pre-determined mind and rejected claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of overage whereas petitioner was merely 28 years of age on the date of application. The age is to be assessed on the date of death of employee and not on the date of application. Learned counsel further argues that the decision with regard to age assessment by the Medical Board is also not correct as the minimum age was shown to be 35 years but the same has not been accepted. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order denying employment on ground of overage is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Judgment dated 10.02.2021, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others passed in L.P.A. No