Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22544-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 123 of 2025 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, PO- GPO, PS- Kotwali District - Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, and also through its H.O.D. (Legal) Sri Jobe V.P., aged about 53 years, S/o. Late V.V. Philip, residing at 396/B, Road No.4-C, Ashok Nagar, PO -Doranda, PS- Argora, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand), who is also representing the other appellants herein 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO- GPO, PS- Kotwali, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PQ- GPO, PS - Kotwali, District -Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. General Manager (P & IR-L/MP & R), Darbhanga House, PO- GPO, PS - Kotwali, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Project Officer, Kargali UG, Kargali, B & K Area of Central Coalfields Limited, Kargali, P.O. and P.S.- Bermo District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... Respondents/Appellants Versus Suresh, son of Late Madan Munda, resident of Ruidih, PO- Badachiru, PS- Chaibasa (Muffasil), District- West Singhbhum, PIN-833201 (Jharkhand) … ...Writ Petitioner/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate Mr Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Harsh Chandra, Advocate Mr Shashank Kumar, Advocate --------- 06/Dated: 30.07.2026 I.A. No. 2294 of 2025 1. Having considered the averments in the I.A. and further, having regard to the order that is proposed to be made in the accompanying Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22544-DB appeal, we condone the delay and dispose of this Interlocutory Application. L.P.A. No. 123 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This LPA arises from the learned Single Judge’s order dated 11.03.2024 disposing of W.P.(S) No. 4930 of 2018 issuing the following operational directives in paragraphs 9 and 10:- “9. As the first ground of rejection fails in view of this Court, I, hereby, direct the respondents- Central Coalfields Limited to constitute a Medical Board regarding determination of age of the petitioner. After constitution of Medical Board, which shall be comprised of one of the experts in the field, if it is found that age of the petitioner was within the age limit to be considered i.e. less than 35 years on the date of death of the employee, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. However, if the Medical Board opines that the petitioner was over-age at the said time, his case shall be rejected outrightly without further reference to the Bench. 10. Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22544-DB 4. Upon being pointed out to Mr Amit Kumar Das, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, that the above operative portion does not really affect the appellants or respondent and rather, the same is quite equitable and in the interest of justice, Mr Amit Das, on instructions, states that there is no difficulty in complying with the above-referred operative directions. However, he submits that the observations in paragraph no. 8 of the impugned order about the appellants sleeping over the matter for 18 long years are incorrect and the same ought to be expunged. 5. Mr Amit Kumar Das pointed out that in this case the respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 20.07.2006 and such application was rejected by the appellants on 22nd December 2006 i.e. within hardly five months. He pointed out that thereafter the respondent instituted a petition only in the year 2011, in which this Court directed reconsideration of the matter. 6. Considering the above submission, which is supported by the material on record, we expunge the observation in paragraph no. 8 of the impugned order about the appellants sleeping over the matter for 18 long years. 7. Now, with the consent of the parties, which is expressed through their learned counsel, we dispose of this appeal by directing the appellants to constitute a Medical Board to determine the age of the respondent herein. This exercise must be completed within eight Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22544-DB weeks from today. Both parties must cooperate with each other in completing this exercise within the timeline now indicated and, for that purpose, the respondent herein must produce adequate identity documents for establishing his identity, 8. If the Medical Board determines that the respondent herein was 35 years old or below, at the time of the death of his father, i.e. on 22nd December 2005, then the appellants will have to offer the respondent compassionate appointment to an appropriate post. 9. However, if the Medical Board determines otherwise, there is no question of any further relief to the respondent herein. No doubt, the decision of the Medical Board, if adverse to the respondent, will be subject to any further proceedings that the respondent may be advised to take in that regard. 10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 30, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 01.08.2026