JUDGMENT :

The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the writ Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Authority as contained in letter no.1487 dated 08.06.2017, by which, the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father was appointed on 01.12.1975 with the respondent CCL and he was working in Bhurkunda Colliery. In the service excerpt issued in favour of the writ petitioner’s father, the age of the writ petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 11 years as on 01.04.1987. The writ petitioner has produced the various documents showing his date of birth as 26.07.1985. The father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 19.02.2015. The writ petitioner has made an application for his employment under the provision of Para 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.).

The respondent-CCL in view of the discrepancy in the age of the writ petitioner appearing in the service excerpt of the father of the writ petitioner and his age appearing on the document furnished by him, he was asked to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. The Medical Board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner as 37 ½ years on the date of his application and as such, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected considering the maximum age of the writ petitioner for appointment, as per the N.C.W.A. to be 35 years vide decision, as contained in letter dated 08.06.2017.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the Administrative Authority, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017 taking the plea therein that the writ petitioner has produced the Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate etc. to show that his age was below 35 years which has not been considered by the respondent-CCL in the right perspective. The other issues have also been agitated that in view of the provision of N.C.W.A., the case of the writ petitioner is fit to be considered in right direction and the writ petitioner was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

The respondent-CCL has taken the plea that the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Brij Lal was designated as Store Keeper at Bhurkunda Colliery and he died in harness on 19.02.2015. After the death of the employee, the mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Smt. Ramsakhi Devi submitted a representation on 26.03.2016 for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground.

It has been submitted that as per the provision of N.C.W.A., the maximum age limit of dependent for compassionate appointment is not required to be more than 35 years. However, the age of the writ petitioner was more than 35 years on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, therefore, such claim has been rejected.

It has further been stated that the Medical Board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be in between 35 to 40 years as on 12.04.2017 and as such, the respondent-CCL, by taking into consideration the decision contained in circular dated 07.07.1992, the mid-point of the age of the writ petitioner has finally been assessed, as per which, the writ petitioner has been found to be more than 35 years, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been rejected.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the par