The court ruled that age assessment for compassionate appointments must prioritize minimum legal thresholds over midpoint calculations, endorsing a liberal interpretation of beneficial statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3378 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has declined to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent-CCL by which the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner/appellant has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has crossed the maximum age of 35 years on the basis of the assessment made by the Medical Board.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the petition and in the memo of appeal needs to be refer herein which reads as under:

The petitioner has claimed appointment on compassionate ground after demise of his father, who was working as CAT-II Drill Helper under respondent CCL. His father died in harness on 25.03.2020.

The petitioner being legal heir and son of the deceased employee had applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement on 12.11.2020.

After due consideration, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 10.06.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age of appointment required for compassionate appointment.

3. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3378 of 2023, which was being rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court, against which the instant appeal is filed.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant being dependent of the deceased employee had made an application for consideration of the appointment on compassionate ground.

5. The respondent authorities, while entertaining the said application, has submitted the appellant to Medical Board for assessment of his age in order to assess as to whether the appellant was within the age of 35 years or more than 35 years.

6. The Medical Boad has assessed the age of the petitioner to be in between the age of 35 to 40 years, hence coming to the mid-point in between the age of 35 to 40 years, i.e., 37.5 years age of the appellant has been assessed.

7. Vide order dated 10.06.2022, the respondent, on consideration of the aforesaid assessment of the age of the appellant by the Medical Board, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant on the ground that the appellant has crossed the age of 35 years on the date of filing application for compassionate appointment.

8. The appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the said order by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3378 of 2023.

9. The respondent CCL has appeared and contested the case and while filing the counter-affidavit, the ground has been taken that there is no error in the assessment made by the Medical Board and further if the age of the petitioner will be taken into consideration i.e. 31.12.1982 which has been mentioned in the Aadhar card as available in the paper book at Page No. 79, the age of the appellant will be more than the age of 35 years.

10.The appellant/writ petitioner has taken the ground by relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan V. CCL , 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 1301, has submitted that as per the aforesaid judgment in case of age assessment by the medical board, lower age limit has to be taken into consideration.

11.The learned writ Court, on consideration of the fact that the age of the appellant has been assessed by the Medical Board to be 37.5 years, the mid-point in between the age of 35 to 40 years and applying the order passed by Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samthiet iH, Soanr’bdlaer sAhpaehxar & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 609 has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following g