JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.). 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned Letter bearing Reference No.PD/MP/9.3.0/Piparwar/21/1294 dated 08/09.07.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner after medical examination was found to be aged between 35 to 40 years, thus being over aged. The petitioner further prays for his appointment on compassionate ground. 3. It is the case of the respondents that since during the medical examination, age of the petitioner was assessed somewhere between 35 to 40 years considering the midpoint, it was decided that his age be treated to be 37 ½ years, thus being more than 35 years, which is the minimum age for appointment, his application for compassionate appointment was rejected. 4. The facts are not disputed in this case. Father of this petitioner was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), who died in harness on 01.11.2019. 4.1. Mother of this petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to this petitioner on 20.07.2020. 4.2. The petitioner was sent for medical examination wherein his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years. Thus, considering the midpoint to be the actual age i.e. 37 ½ years, his case was rejected on 08/09.07.2021. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents and all the documents would suggest that he was less than 35 years at the time of death of his father. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited. 6.1. From the said supplementary counter affidavit, I find that there is reference of several documents which were much prior to the date of death of father of this petitioner. These documents reflect the age of this petitioner. 6.2. As per LLTC Form-D for Block Year 2016-19, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30 years as on 12.11.2016, which means that the age of this petitioner at the time of death of his father was around 33 years, which is less than 35 years. 6.3. These documents reflect the age of this petitioner. 6.2. As per LLTC Form-D for Block Year 2016-19, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 30 years as on 12.11.2016, which means that the age of this petitioner at the time of death of his father was around 33 years, which is less than 35 years. 6.3. Similarly, in the LLTC / LTC Form-D for the Block Year 2012-15, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 26 years as on 27.04.2012, which if calculated will be less than 35 years at the time of death of father of the petitioner as well as at the time of application. 6.4. Further, age of the petitioner in LLTC / LTC Form-D for Block Year 2004-07, was recorded as 17 years as on 16.06.2004. 6.5. Further, as per PS-3 Form of CMPF, the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 12 years as on 12.05.1998. 7. All the aforesaid records clearly suggest that not only at the time of death of father of this petitioner but also at the time of application, this petitioner was less than 35 years. When there are numbers of documents which suggest that the age of the petitioner was less than 35 years at the time of death of the deceased employee and also the time of making the application, the respondents could not have relied upon the medical examination report of the petitioner. 8. The issue as to what would be the age for grant of compassionate appointment, when the midpoint is taken, as calculated by the respondents, has been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2790 of 2020 (Nand Lal Soren Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.) . The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 02.04.2025. This Court while allowing the said writ petition, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Dubey Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. in (Civil Appeal No.(S). 908 of 2025) (decided on 21 st January, 2025), wherein it has been held that the opinion of the Medical Board in assessing the age, cannot be said to be accurate. 8.1. This Court further referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 01.01.2010 in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 ( Md. Rahim Vs. 908 of 2025) (decided on 21 st January, 2025), wherein it has been held that the opinion of the Medical Board in assessing the age, cannot be said to be accurate. 8.1. This Court further referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 01.01.2010 in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 ( Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL ) , wherein it was held that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground of variation of age. It was also held that there is always a possibility of error of plus minus two years in age calculation. 8.2. This Court also referred to the judgment dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L) & Ors.) , wherein it has been held that since the provision of compassionate appointment is a Social Security Scheme, the same has to be interpreted in the light of object it intends to achieve and in case of variation of age, the age which is favourable to the applicant, has to be considered. It is necessary to quote para-7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment of Nand Lal Soren (supra), which reads as follows:- “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 21 st 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. 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 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. 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.” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned Letter bearing Reference No.PD/MP/9.3.0/Piparwar/21/1294 dated 08/09.07.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), is hereby quashed and set aside. 9.1. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner treating his age to be less than 35 years on the date of death of his father (deceased employee) and also the date of application of this petitioner, and pass an appropriate order within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9.2. Further, if it is found that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment, the appointment letter should be issued to him accordingly. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed . No order as to costs. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.