Nand Lal Soren vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4489 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Nand Lal Soren vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                        2025:JHHC:10798
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   W.P.(S) No.2790 of 2020
                                                  -----
          Nand Lal Soren, S/o Darbari Manjhi, R/o S.K. Nagar, P.O. - Rajrappa Project,
          P.S. - Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh.
                                                                 ..........        Petitioner
                                                   Versus
          1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
          having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali,
          District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
          2.Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga
          House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
          3. General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at
          Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.Ο.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi,
          Jharkhand.
          4. General Manager, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa
          Project, P.S. District-Ramgarh. Rajrappa.
          5. The Project Officer, Rajrappa Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa
          Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh.
          6.Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh
                                                         ..........       Respondent(s)
                                            ......
               CORAM :               SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate

15/ 02.04.2025 Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) For issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.12.2019 and 14.11.2019, Annexure-8 (Series), whereby and whereunder, petitioner's claim of employment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that as per medical board opinion he was aged above to 35 years on the date of application for employment.

(b) For issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to consider petitioner's claim under the provision 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (in short 'NCWA) and grant him employment on compassionate ground, as such, forthwith."

3. Undisputed facts of this case are that the late Darbari Manjhi, an Explosive Carrier who worked at the Rajrappa Project of Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) died in harness on December 3, 2017. Following

2025:JHHC:10798

his death, his son, Nand Lal Soren, submitted an application on March 8, 2018, seeking employment on compassionate grounds as per Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The company responded on April 18, 2018, rejecting Nand Lal Soren's claim due to a discrepancy in the deceased's service record. The record listed his sons as Sukhlal Manjhi and Kund Lal Manjhi, which led the company to question Nand Lal Soren's eligibility. Thereafter, the respondents constituted a committee on representation dated 6.8.2018 filed by the petitioner to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and found that both are the same person and then the petitioner was issued the prescribed application form on 30.01.2019 which he submitted on 04.02.2019. Finally, the respondents constituted a medical board for the assessment of age of the petitioner which found his age to be in between 35-40 years. Thus, taking the average age i.e. more than 35 years, his claim was rejected.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the provision for compassionate appointment under NCWA is a beneficial provision aimed at providing social security to the dependents of deceased employees. Given its beneficial nature, it requires a liberal and purposive interpretation to achieve its object. He further argues that the petitioner's application should not have been rejected due to minor discrepancies. He also submits that the entry in the school register should be considered as the actual date of birth of the petitioner. He lastly argued that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment and that the respondent's refusal to consider his application basing on the assessment of age of the petitioner by the medical board is bad.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner was non-matriculate, and compassionate appointment is granted only if the age of applicant is 35 years or below, therefore, to ascertain the age of the applicant his case was referred to the Medical Board, which found the age of the applicant to be 36 years, 11 months, and 13 days on the date of application i.e. on 04.02.2019. Thus, on this

2025:JHHC:10798

ground his application was rejected. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent and the same needs no interference.

6. This Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.372 of 2021 vide order dated 07.06.2022 has observed that when the documents pertaining to the age are issued prior to the date of application of compassionate appointment the same can be taken as valid proof of date of birth.

7. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Dubey vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others in Civil Appeal No.(S). 908 of 2025 decided on 21st January, 2025 has held that the opinion of the medical board regarding age does not give accurate estimation. In paragraphs 9 and 10 it was held as under:-

"9. A Medical Board by using scientific methods can never make an accurate estimation of the age of a human being. It is always an estimate which can never be accurate.

10. In the present case, the relevant date for deciding the age of the appellant is 31st July, 2013. We have perused the certificate of the Medical Board dated 10th December, 2014. The Medical Board has recorded that the recommendation is based on physical and radiological examination of the appellant. It is not necessary to record detailed reasons to hold that it is unsafe to make an accurate estimation of the age on the basis of physical examination or radiological examination or ossification test. These methods have their own limitations. In fact, the opinion of the Medical Board records that the age of the appellant as on 31st December, 2014 was in between 35-40 years. Going by the said opinion, in July 2013, it is quite possible that the age of the appellant was less than 35 years."

8. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case also has held that the statements made by the employee in the service records cannot be treated as conclusive and in case the respondents do not doubt the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate the same can be accepted as valid proof of age. In para 11 it was held as follows:-

"11. As no dispute has been raised regarding genuineness of the school leaving certificate dated 15th July, 2013, we find that on the date on which the appellant's father was superannuated, the appellant's age was less than 35 years. The statements made by his father while stating the family particulars of the appellant cannot be conclusive. Moreover, in none of these statements, the precise date of birth of the appellant has been mentioned by his father."

9. Further a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) has held that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground of variation of age. It was observed that there always

2025:JHHC:10798

remains a possibility of error of plus-minus two years in age calculation. The petitioner was found to be little more than 35 years of age, which is evident from the averment made in the counter affidavit in paragraph 20, therefore, the petitioner must be given the benefit of possibility of error in the medical board's assessment of age.

10. As N.C.W.A. is a social security scheme it has to be construed liberally. This court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors) disposed of on 10.02.2021, has observed that since the provision of compassionate appointment is a social security scheme it has to be interpreted in the light of object it intends to achieve and in case of variation in age, the age which is favourable to the applicant has to be considered.

Thus, considering the aforesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the lower limit of age assessed by the Board should be considered which is 35 years in this case. A person of 35 year is entitled to be employed in the Company.

12. Accordingly, the orders dated 14.12.2019 and 14.11.2019, are set aside. Respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, accordingly, and take an appropriate decision in the light of the observations made hereto before, considering the age of the petitioner to be 35 years.

13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

14. Pending IA, if any, stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

R.S./