(2025:JHHC:28072) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No. 461 of 2022 Dwarika Ganjhu, aged about 39 years, son of late Govrdhan Ganjhu and late Chamani Devi, resident of village Giddi Basti, PO & PS – Giddi ‘A’, District – Hazaribagh, (Ramgarh), Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Office at Darbhanga House, PO – GPO, PS – Kotwali, Town & District – Ranchi, 834001. 2. The Direction (Personnel), Central Coalfieds Ltd. Having Office at Darbhanga House, PO – GPO, PS – Kotwali, Town and District – Ranchi, 834001. 3. The General Manager (MP & RECTT), Central Coalfields Ltd., having office at Darbhanga House, PO – GPO, PS – Kotwali, Town & District – Ranchi, 834001. 4. The H.O.D. (Security), Central Coalfields Ltd. (HQ), having office at Darbhanga House, PO – GPO, PS – Kotwali, Town & District – Ranchi 834001. 5. The Deputy General Manager (P & A), Kujur Area, PO – Kuju, PS – Mandu, District – Ramgarh. 6. The Project Officer, Topa Colliery, Kuju Area, PO – Topa, PS – Mandu, District- Ramgarh 7. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Topa Colliery, PO – Topa, PS – Mandu, District- Ramgarh. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Munga Lal Chitra, Advocate For the Resp-CCL : Mr. Ujjal Chaudhary, Advocate : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate --- 09/12th September 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Memo No. 1825 dated 3.01.2022 whereby the petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled holding that at the time of appointment he was more than 35 years of age. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. No notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He submits that he was appointed on compassionate ground and before appointment he had furnished his School Leaving Certificate as he (2025:JHHC:28072) 2 has studied up to Class – VIII. As per the School Leaving Certificate, issued on 21.03.1999 his date of birth is 01.09.1982 and the same was duly verified by the officers concerned before giving employment to the petitioner. As per the date of birth referred in the School Leaving Certificate, the petitioner was less than 35 years on the date when employment was given to him. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Coal Fields Ltd. Submits that though the certificate was filed but there was some doubt about his actual age thus he was sent for medical examination. As per medical examination report dated 12.09.2018, his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years, thus on the date of appointment he was more than 35 years of age. The maximum age for appointment admittedly is 35 years, thus it was decided that the petitioner be removed from service on the ground that average of the assessed age is taken to be the age on the date of appointment, which in this case is 37 ½ years. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s mother was a Category – I Majdoor in Central Coal Fields Ltd. She died in harness. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. As per the petitioner, he studied up the Class -VIII. A School Leaving Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 21.03.1999 recording his date of birth as 01.09.1982. 6. Considering all these documents, the petitioner was issued the offer of appointment which the petitioner duly accepted and he joined service. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for medical examination on 12.09.2018 wherein his age was assessed between 35 – 40 years. The said medical report is at Annexure – E to the counter affidavit. As per the said report, age of the petitioner was assessed in the range between 35 – 40 years, that means the petitioner according to the medical board is somewhere aged between 35 – 40 years as on 12.09.2018. Be it noted that the petitioner applied on 27.06.2016 for compassionate appointment. 7. From the medical report itself it is clear that no specific age was assessed by the Board, rather they have only fixed a range within (2025:JHHC:28072) 3 which as per them, the age of the petitioner will fall. The assessment was between 35 – 40 years that means the age of the petitioner according to the Medical Board, is somewhere between 35 – 40 years on 12.09.2018. 8. Since the petitioner applied in the year 2016 thus at that point of time, his age would be somewhere between 33 – 38 years. Lower range of this period is admittedly less than 35 years. There is a School Leaving Certificate on record also. As per the said School Leaving Certificate which is at Annexure - 7, his date of birth is 01.09.1982. Considering the said date of birth also, the age of the petitioner would be less than 35 years on the date of appointment. 9. It is CCLs submission that the age of the petitioner is assessed as 35 years 3 months and 15 days on the date of appointment taking mid-range of the assessment. This pin-point assessment cannot be done by any Medical Board, only a range can be assessed. In this case, the range which has been assessed, is on 2018, whereas the petitioner has applied in the year 2016. What could be the range in 2016, is assessed by this Court reducing two years from the age assessed and recorded in medical report. This assessment comes to 33 to 35 years in 2016. 10. Compassionate appointment is given to the dependent of the deceased employee to overcome the sudden financial crisis. Though the scheme is against the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but such schemes are held to be valid. The purpose of the scheme is to enable the family to overcome the sudden financial crisis. This scheme is a benevolent scheme. A benevolent scheme must be interpreted in favour of the person or class for whose favour the said scheme has been formulated. 11. In this case, since the age assessed by me is 33 – 38 years on the date of employment, the lower age limit should be considered as the age for the purpose of appointment. 12. Considering the range i.e., 33 to 38 years and considering the lower age limit, I hold that the petitioner’s age should be treated to be less than 35 years. (2025:JHHC:28072) 4 13. Further admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, which violates the principles of natural justice. 14. Considering the aforesaid submissions made above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated immediately in service with 50% back-wages. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi