JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter dated No. PD/MP/9.3.0/NK/18/3805 dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-authorities.

Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to issue letter of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner.

3. As per the factual matrix, the father of the petitioner, late Pukram was employed with the respondent-CCL to the post of Ex-EP Fitter, KDH Project, NK Area and subsequently, died in harness on 23.06.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.05.1998, petitioner was 15 years of age, which is also evident from LTC Form. It is the specific case of the petitioner that documents submitted by father of the petitioner clearly shows that on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, age of the petitioner was 34 years 2 months, which is well within the limits for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Inspite of the same, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent-authorities on the ground that different age has been mentioned in several documents. As such, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, which was of the opinion that age of the petitioner was between 35 to 40 years and hence, his case for compassionate appointment was rejected. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the said order of rejection.

4. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that illegally and arbitrarily, without considering the documents available in the service excerpts of the petitioner’s father, the respondents have sent the petitioner before the Medical Board for assessment of his, which has assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 35 to 40 years. It has been further argued that even taking into consideration the age assessed by the Medical Board, the lesser age was to be considered by the respondent-authorities and as such, rejection of the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of overage, on the fact it, is illegal and void ab initio. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the plethora of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submits that it is well settled law that minimum age has to be taken into consideration in case of any dispute with respect to age. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground and issue letter of appointment to that effect.

5. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not within the ambit of consideration as he was overage on the date of application for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submits that in view of variation in the age of the petitioner recorded in the service excerpts of his father, which is reflected from the several documents, the matter was referred to the Medical Board. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the decision of the Medical Board and submits that even the Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 35 to 40 years. Learned counsel submits that as per the Circular of Coal India Ltd. any age assessed by the Medical Board, the midway of the same has to be taken into consideration and as such, the same was done and upon consideration it was found that petitioner has crossed 35 years, which is the maximum age prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further argues that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case and as such, justifying the impu