JUDGMENT

1. With 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.

I.A. No.5590 of 2020

2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 62 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Heard.

4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.5590 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 62 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.234 of 2019

6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of the Patna High Court, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2499 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 21/22.07.2017 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be enumerated, reads as hereunder:

The brother of the writ petitioner namely, Suresh Singh Ghatwar, was appointed under the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited having his date of birth as 05.12.1963. The respondents-Central Coalfields Limited had prepared service excerpts issued on 18.04.1987 which shows the name of the writ petitioner as one of the dependants being his brother. The said Suresh Singh Ghatwar died on 04.06.2012 and thereafter his name was struck off from the roll. The writ petitioner had made an application for employment on 13.10.2012 in the prescribed manner but on enquiry it was found that the claim of the writ petitioner is not fit to be allowed for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that in the service excerpts the age of the writ petitioner has been recorded as 14 years on 01.04.1987 and hence on the date of death of his brother i.e. 04.06.2012, the writ petitioner was above the age of 35 years. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2499 of 2018 but the said writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge which is impugned in this memo of appeal on the ground that the age of the writ petitioner has been found to be more than 35 years as on the date of death of the employee.

8. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the age having been found to be more than 35 years is absolutely incorrect as because in the 'service excerpts' the age of the writ petitioner is found to be more than 35 years on the date of death of the employee but as per other document i.e. 'P.S-3 Form' his age has been shown below 35 years of age and as such, it was the requirement of the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited to get the writ petitioner examined. But, the respondent authorities, without examining the writ petitioner medically, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the fact that the writ petitioner has attained the age of more than 35 years while there is contradiction in the age.

9. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited has submitted that the writ petitioner has been found above than the age of 35 years as per the service excerpts and taking into consideration the age of the writ petitioner found to be crossed the maximum age bar, there is no illegality in the impugned decision taken by the authorities.

So far as the applicability of the Implementation Instruction No.76 is concerned, the same does not pertains to a candidate who is seeking appointment rather the same is to be taken into consideration only for the determination/verification of the age of the employees. The wr