S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- (I) For quashing the letter No. 1848 dated 18/19.12.2011, whereby the claim for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the Medical Board has ascertained the age of the petitioner above 35 years as on 27.05.2009. (II) For issuance of direction to the respondent to consider the age of the Medical Board as per order dated 09.01.2003 of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S). No. 6037 of 2002 (Ram Kishun Pandey Vrs. CCL & Ors.), whereby the respondents have been directed to consider the starting point of date assessed by the Medical Board. (III) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith provide him appointment on compassionate ground as he was less than 35 years as on 27.05.2009. FACTUAL MATRIX
(3.) The father of the petitioner, late Rajeshwar Singh, died in harness on 20.02.2009, while he was in the employment of Central Coalfields Ltd., Gidi 'A' Colliery. After death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 27.05.2009. Since the petitioner was not having the authentic proof of his age, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 09.03.2011 upon which the petitioner has appeared before the Medical Board. Thereafter, the Manager (P), Giddi 'A' Colliery vide his letter No. 1848 dated 18/19.12.2011 has informed that as per the assessment of the Medical Board, the petitioner has crossed the age of 35 years as on 27.05.2009 and rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that since, the age assessed by the Medical Board was not communicated to the petitioner, he sought information under RTI vide application dated 03.06.2016. In response to that, Sr. Manager (P), AIPO of the respondent-company provided the report of the Age Assessment Committee vide letter No. 940 dated 23/26.07.2016. It is apparent from the report of the Age Assessment Committee held on 09.03.2011 that on the said date petitioner has been assessed between 35 years to 40 years and respondent-company considered the average age of 35 years to 40 years i.e. 37½ years and arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner has crossed the age of 35 years on the date of making application. On the basis of such report, the respondent-company has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent a legal notice on 18.01.2017, which was duly received by the respondent on 20.01.2017 but the respondent have not given any reply to the same. Hence, this writ petition.;