JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide Annexure-8 dated 28th August 2008 issued by the Deputy Personnel Manager, Urimari Project, Central Coalfields Limited. The grounds for such rejection is that none of the documents submitted by the petitioner, were authenticated and there is age dispute in relation to the claim of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner died on 24th May 2005 while working as Wagon Loader in Urimari Project under the respondent CCL. Mother of the petitioner had already died on 24th October 2004. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment under Clause-9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's name appears in Gratuity Nomination, Family Member Certificate issued by the authority on 24th November 2005 and Ration Card issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 15th December 1994 as well as the LIC policy taken by the father of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent should not have refused consideration of the case of the petitioner based upon the aforesaid documents which are authentic. 4. Respondent CCL in their counter affidavit, have taken a stand that as per the records of the deceased employee which are to be relied upon i.e. service book and service sheet excerpts, gratuity nomination, LTC/LLTC Option Form-A and CMPF Declaration in Form-A, the name of the petitioner appears as the daughter of the deceased employee aged six years of age as on 9.5.2001 which is mentioned in LTC Form-A. In Gratuity Nomination form-F, age of the petitioner is not recorded. As per the age recorded in LTC Form-A by the deceased employee, at the time of his death on 24th May 2005 the petitioner would have been ten years of age. Other service records of the deceased employee relied upon as aforesaid, are not available. In such circumstances, the petitioner was found to be only ten years of age as per LTC Form-A declaration and her claim has been rejected on the ground of being underage. Respondents have further taken a stand that the BDO's certificate and Ration Card cannot be relied upon, so far as the age of the petitioner is concerned. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner was found to be only ten years of age as per LTC Form-A declaration and her claim has been rejected on the ground of being underage. Respondents have further taken a stand that the BDO's certificate and Ration Card cannot be relied upon, so far as the age of the petitioner is concerned. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a document at Annexure-7 dated 25th May 2007 which relates to the age assessment of the dependents of Exemployee by the Apex Medical Board. 6. However, counsel for the respondents submits that a perusal of the same also indicates that the incumbents therein were more than twelve years of age. Under the terms of NCWA, a minor could have been kept in live roster if he / she is above the twelve years of age. In the instant case, as per the documents maintained in the office of respondents, the petitioner's age was less than that and at best, was ten years at the time of her father's death. The petitioner has not been able to show any authentic documents in proof of her age. Therefore, her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. At the outset, on being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any unimpeachable document which can show the date of birth of the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the petitioner being Ration Card, do not inspire confidence in respect of the determination of age of the petitioner. On the contrary, the declaration made by the deceased employee in LTC Form-A indicates that she was six years of age as on 9th May 2001. Reckoning six years as on 9th May 2001, she could, at best, be ten years of age at the time of her father's death. In such circumstances therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner is based upon determination of disputed question of facts which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to make out any prima facie case for interference in the impugned order which does not suffer from any infirmity or any error of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.