2025:JHHC:15192 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4198 of 2020 1.(I) Jhunia Devi, age about 36 yrs., w/o Nakul Turi (II) Akash Kumar Turi, age about 16 yrs., s/o Nakul Turi (III) Laxmi Kumari, age about 15 yrs., D/o Nakul Turi, Resident of House No.: 30, village-Pichhari Uttari, Gagi, PO & PS- Petarbar, District-Bokaro ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi; 2. Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi; 3. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi; 4.General Manager (Industrial Relation & Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi; 5. Project Officer, Kalyani Project, Central Coalfields Limited Khusro, P.O.-Khusro Bazar, P.S.-Bermo, District- Bokaro; 6. Deputy Manager (P), Kalyani Project/Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Khusro, P.O.-Khusro Bazar, P.S.-Bermo, District-Bokaro; … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate -------- 08/Dated: 11th June 2025 The instant writ application was preferred by the original petitioner, namely, Nakul Turi for quashing and setting the impugned order dated 11/12.12.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ application); whereby the 6th respondent declined to entertain the claim of the original petitioner for his employment on compassionate ground under 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement on the ground of over-age. 2025:JHHC:15192 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this writ application the original petitioner, namely, Nakul Turi died on 22.05.2021. Thereafter, a substitution petition was filed and the name of the present petitioners has been substituted pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.10.2023. He further draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order wherein the only ground for rejection of employment on compassionate ground was over-age. Learned counsel further submits that taking a midpoint from 35 to 40 years by the Medical Board has been deprecated by this Court in several judgments and in LPA No. 176 of 2022 titled “Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. V. Jatlu Bhuiyan” the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the issue to take midpoint as per the assessment of the Medical Board is illegal; as such, the impugned order requires interference and the matter should be remitted back to the competent authority to give appointment to the rightful claimant in view of the fact that under 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA); compassionate appointment/monetary compensation are mandatory. As such, non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement is also bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order; however, he could not dispute the fact that the issue has been decided in LPA No. 372 of 2021 and the order of L.P.A. was also challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 19183 of 2022 and the said S.L.P.(C) was also dismissed. 4. To decide the lis in the instant application it is necessary to go through the impugned order of rejection. For brevity, the relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow: “fnukad 05-12-2018 ds ek/;e ls vkid Age Assessment Report izkIr gqvk ftlesa esfMdy cksMZ xka/khuxj lhlh,y ¼jk¡ph½ ds vuqlkj vkidk mez 37½ D.O.B 26-04-1981 fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS blds vuqlkj vkids vkosnu ds le; vkidh mez 36 lky] 07 eghuk & 09 fnu gqbZ vkSj 9-3-0 ds vUrxZr fu;kstu dh vf/kdre mez lhek 35 o’kZ gksus ds dkj.k vkids vkosnu is fdlh rjg dh 2025:JHHC:15192 3 dkjZokgh ugh dh tk;sxhA” 6. After going through the impugned order, it is evident that the respondents have taken 37½ years as a midpoint from the date of birth of the original petitioner and since as per the Medical Board he was above the age of 37½ years his case was rejected. Further, after perusing the order passed in LPA No. 176 of 2022 it appears that the ground on which the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of the original petitioner has been taken care of in LPA No. 372 of 2021 which was challenged by filing S.L.P.(C) No. 19183 of 2022 and the said SLP was also dismissed. The Division Bench in LPA No. 176 of 2022 has referred to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and held at para 30 as under: “30. It is, thus, evident that the issue to take midpoint as per the assessment of the Medical Board has been held to be illegal. Here, the main ground for rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner has been found to be of the age of 37½ years by taking midpoint as per the assessment made by the Medical Board to be in between 35 – 40 years. The issue has been decided by this Court, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the midpoint of the age is not permissible and in that view of the matter, if on that ground the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected, the same cannot be said to be proper and justified.” 7. Having regard to the settled position that taking midpoint as per the assessment of the Medical Board has been declared as illegal and the same has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. As such, there is no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of rejection (Annexure- 6 to the writ application) is bad in law and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. Now the issue before this Court is, as to who would be the rightful claimant in view of the fact that the original petitioner has died. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.5 who shall take a decision in the matter as to what relief could be given to the present petitioners by issuing necessary letter/notice to the legal heirs of Sushila Devi-deceased employee and after thorough verification take a decision regarding 2025:JHHC:15192 4 issuance of appointment letter to the rightful claimant and/or to pay compensation as per the clause-9.3.0 of NCWA (National Coal Wage Agreement). 8. It is made clear that since it is a matter of compassionate appointment/compensation; as such decision by the 5th Respondent shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit