Order : The respondent in W.P.(S) No. 2530 of 2014 is the review petitioner seeking to impugn the judgment dated 17th December, 2014 passed therein, which reads as under :- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. In order to avoid repetition the gist of the case of the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 1st July, 2014 is being quoted hereunder: “The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25th July, 2013 as a Clerk under the Respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. He applied for compassionate appointment on 17th December, 2013 which has been rejected on 14th April, 2103 by the impugned order, Annexure-12 on the ground that he was more than 35 years of age. The petitioner has relied upon the transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Public High School, Kuju, Ramgarh, Annexure-8 on 29th November, 2013, as per which his date of birth is 25th January, 1981. He has also enclosed the matriculation cross list, Annexure-6 which indicates the same date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for rejection of the compassionate appointment might be the filing of the fresh nomination form, Annexure-2 by his father in which inadvertently the petitioner's age is indicated as 35 years on 28th August, 2008. However, according to the Implementation Instruction No. 76 at Annexure-10, the respondents ought to have recognized the school leaving certificate as laid down under Clause A(ii) as yardstick for assessing the correct date of birth of the petitioner which has not been done. Learned counsel for the Respondent-C.C.L, however, seeks and is allowed 6 weeks' time to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. List this case thereafter under the appropriate heading.” The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to learned counsel for the respondents, there are three documents, which were furnished by the petitioner's father during service. One is at Annexure-C which is of September, 1992 and is a list of family members where the petitioner's age is shown as 19 years. Annexure-D is other document, which is L.T.C. Form-A and is dated 2nd January, 1991 where age of the petitioner is shown as 18 years. The other document is Annexure-E which is Fresh Nomination Form-G for the purposes of gratuity, in which the petitioner's age is shown as 35 years which is filled up on 28th August, 2008. Annexure-D is other document, which is L.T.C. Form-A and is dated 2nd January, 1991 where age of the petitioner is shown as 18 years. The other document is Annexure-E which is Fresh Nomination Form-G for the purposes of gratuity, in which the petitioner's age is shown as 35 years which is filled up on 28th August, 2008. Counsel for the respondent submits that the documents which are maintained in the employer office and furnished by the employee himself from time to time are taken to be material to judge the application of a dependent seeking compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner's claim has been rejected as he had crossed 35 years of age at the time of death of his father on 25th July, 2013. On the other hand, the document which has been relied upon by the petitioner is a transfer certificate, Annexure-8 dated 29th November, 2013, where his date of birth is shown as 25th January, 1981 and date of school leaving is 25th September, 1995. Annexure-6 is a cross list of candidates, who had appeared in the matriculation exam from K.H.S. Kuju Public School. In that document, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 25th January, 1981 and his name is at serial no. 282. As per the Implementation Instruction no. 76 which lays down the procedure for determination and verification of age of employees, in case of matriculates the matriculation certificate is to be relied upon. In case of non-matriculates but educated, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate has to be treated as correct date of birth. From the materials relied upon by the petitioner as also by the respondents, the inference that can be drawn is that the material documents in the custody of the respondents though were filled up by the petitioner's father in different years i.e. 1991; 1992 and 2008, but they do not disclose the exact date of birth rather they are assessment of age of the petitioner. If by the document at Annexure-C the age of the petitioner was 19 years in 1992, the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner being the Mark-sheet (Annexure-7), School Leaving Certificate (Annexure-8) and the cross list (Annexure-6) show a definite date of birth i.e. 25th January, 1981 and that he had appeared in Matriculation Exam in 1995 itself. If by the document at Annexure-C the age of the petitioner was 19 years in 1992, the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner being the Mark-sheet (Annexure-7), School Leaving Certificate (Annexure-8) and the cross list (Annexure-6) show a definite date of birth i.e. 25th January, 1981 and that he had appeared in Matriculation Exam in 1995 itself. The same, of course, are subject to verification from school concerned. Keeping into regard a more accurate document showing the date of birth of the petitioner i.e. School Leaving Certificate itself the respondents should have verified the matter from the school concerned as to the entry of the petitioner in the school and whether he had actually studied or not and whether such entries are corroborated from admission register before coming to a decision whether the petitioner had crossed the age for employment i.e. 35 years. In such circumstance, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the respondent as the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent on the basis of documents furnished earlier by the employee during service on an assessment of age of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14th April, 2014 contained in Annexure-12 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks after due verification from the concerned office. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent as indicated hereinabove.” 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has sought review of the judgment on the grounds that an important fact relating to the deceased employee contained in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition had escaped notice while passing the judgment by the Writ Court. 3. As a matter of fact, the deceased employee was charge-sheeted on 28th December, 2012 alleging the misconduct of fraudulent entry into the employment of the company by falsely claiming himself as son-in-law of Late Tilka Manjhi, an ex-employee of the Religara Colliery itself. During pendency of the charge sheet, however the employee died. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has tried to impress that the dependent of charge-sheeted employee cannot claim a right of consideration for compassionate appointment. 4. During pendency of the charge sheet, however the employee died. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has tried to impress that the dependent of charge-sheeted employee cannot claim a right of consideration for compassionate appointment. 4. This is opposed by learned counsel for the writ petitioner/opposite party herein on the ground that said ground was never urged neither is a valid basis to seek review of the judgment passed on due consideration of all relevant submissions and facts pleaded by the respective parties. 5. Be that as it may, the aforesaid ground would not render the judgment prone to review for the simple reason that the deceased employee was never punished or removed from service consequent to the aforesaid charges of misconduct alleged against him during course of his service. In that sense the guilt was never arrived before his death in harness. He died while in service. The dependent of such an employee, who has been robbed of the bread earner, cannot be denied the right of consideration for compassionate appointment on those grounds. This Court does not find any ground for review of the impugned judgment. 6. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.