JAGDISH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 18.05.2015 by which he has been declined compassionate appointment on the ground that he has crossed 35 years of age on the date of application.

(2.) Briefly stated, father of the petitioner who was employed as 'Tyndale' at Bhurkunda colliery died in harness on 21.11.201 In the service excerpts and other documents maintained by the employer-M/s CCL petitioner has been shown as son of the employee-Raja Ram. Mother of the petitioner has submitted a representation on 23.03.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground whereupon the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 14.06.2013 along with other family members and produce original death-certificate, family details certificate, educational certificate, identity card etc. The respondents have pleaded that in the service related documents of the deceased employee there are discrepancies in the age of the petitioner and therefore in terms of Implementation Instructions No.76 the Age Assessment Committee which consist of several doctors has assessed age of the petitioner. Taking mid-point of the age of the petitioner between 35 to 40 years as assessed by the Medical Board, that is, 37' years, compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been declined on the ground that he has crossed the maximum prescribed age of 35 years on the date of the application seeking compassionate appointment.

(3.) Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that it is the date of death and not the date of application which shall be reckoned for age eligibility of a dependant and if age of the dependant of an ex-employee was within the prescribed age limit on the date of death determination of the age of a claimant by a Medical Board would not be a determinative factor.