The court emphasized that age recorded in official documents should prevail over medical assessments in compassionate appointment cases, requiring a liberal interpretation of the relevant provisions.

ORDER :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing letter no. P.B.P.C/Personnel/2020/95 dated 14/25.05.2020 issued by the Manager (Personnel), Putki Balihari Project Colliery, whereby the petitioner has been informed that further process for his employment on compassionate ground cannot be continued, since his age has been assessed by the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad as 37½ years, whereas the maximum age limit for employment has been fixed as 35 years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Radhey Singh (hereinafter referred as the deceased employee) was initially appointed in the service on 19.02.1987 at Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L as a “Miner Loader” and in course of time he was transferred to Putki Balihari Project Colliery where he was working as “Tyndal”.

3. It is further submitted that the age of the petitioner was mentioned in the service excerpts of his father as 01.01.1987 and the respondents never raised any objection to the said entry till his life time. His father died in harness on 05.08.2018 and the petitioner submitted application before the Deputy General Manager, Putki Balihari Project Colliery on 29.04.2019 requesting his appointment on compassionate ground.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not having any formal qualification and in his Aadhar Card, the date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1987 which is consistent with the entry made in the service excerpts of the deceased employee.

5. It is further submitted that the Manager (Personnel), P.B.P Colliery vide letter under Ref. No.PBPC/PO/ Medical/2020/11 dated 3/4.01.2020 advised the petitioner to appear before the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad on 14.01.2020 and, accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board, however vide impugned letter No. 95 dated 14/25.05.2020, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Putki Balihari Project Colliery, the petitioner was informed that the process of his appointment could not be completed since the maximum age limit for appointment was fixed as 35 years whereas the age of the petitioner was determined by the Apex Medical Board as 37½ years.

6. It is also submitted that the petitioner represented the respondent authorities on 23.10.2021 requesting consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, however, no further action was taken by them in this regard, which has compelled him to file the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 1301.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was interpolation in the service excerpts of the deceased employee and the petitioner by declaring himself to be illiterate did not submit any document pertaining to his educational qualification, he was subjected to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age as per Annexure-I of the Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988, Clause (A) sub-clause (iv), which provides for determination of the age at the time of appointment when a candidate is illiterate.

9. It is further submitted that the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Apex Medical Board in its meeting held on 15.01.2020 and the age assessment report was forwarded by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer I/c, Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad on 20.03.2020 to the competent authority for approval wherein the age of the petitioner was assessed in the range of 35-40 years and the final age was assessed by the Board as 37½ years and as such, the claim of the petitioner was denied.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention puts reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Mukesh Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited (L.P.A