The estimation of age by medical assessment is not definitive; relevant documents asserting a younger age must be favorably considered in compassionate appointment applications.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.).

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned Letter bearing Reference No.PD/MP/9.3.0/Piparwar/21/1294 dated 08/09.07.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner after medical examination was found to be aged between 35 to 40 years, thus being over aged. The petitioner further prays for his appointment on compassionate ground.

3. It is the case of the respondents that since during the medical examination, age of the petitioner was assessed somewhere between 35 to 40 years considering the midpoint, it was decided that his age be treated to be 37 ½ years, thus being more than 35 years, which is the minimum age for appointment, his application for compassionate appointment was rejected.

4. The facts are not disputed in this case. Father of this petitioner was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), who died in harness on 01.11.2019.

4.1. Mother of this petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to this petitioner on 20.07.2020.

4.2. The petitioner was sent for medical examination wherein his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years. Thus, considering the midpoint to be the actual age i.e. 37 ½ years, his case was rejected on 08/09.07.2021.

5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents and all the documents would suggest that he was less than 35 years at the time of death of his father.

6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited.

6.1. From the said supplementary counter affidavit, I find that there is reference of several documents which were much prior to the date of death of father of this petitioner. These documents reflect the age of this petitioner.

6.2. As per LLTC Form-D for Block Year 2016-19, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30 years as on 12.11.2016, which means that the age of this petitioner at the time of death of his father was around 33 years, which is less than 35 years.

6.3. Similarly, in the LLTC / LTC Form-D for the Block Year 2012-15, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 26 years as on 27.04.2012, which if calculated will be less than 35 years at the time of death of father of the petitioner as well as at the time of application.

6.4. Further, age of the petitioner in LLTC / LTC Form-D for Block Year 2004-07, was recorded as 17 years as on 16.06.2004.

6.5. Further, as per PS-3 Form of CMPF, the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 12 years as on 12.05.1998.

7. All the aforesaid records clearly suggest that not only at the time of death of father of this petitioner but also at the time of application, this petitioner was less than 35 years. When there are numbers of documents which suggest that the age of the petitioner was less than 35 years at the time of death of the deceased employee and also the time of making the application, the respondents could not have relied upon the medical examination report of the petitioner.

8. The issue as to what would be the age for grant of compassionate appointment, when the midpoint is taken, as calculated by the respondents, has been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2790 of 2020 (Nand Lal Soren Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 02.04.2025. This Court while a