JUDGMENT : 1. Seeking quashing of order contained in letter dated 17.01.2011 by which application seeking employment for her son on compassionate ground has been declined, petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, petitioner is the widow of the employee-Atwa Oraon who was employed as 'Trammer' at Central Saunda Colliery under the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited. He died in harness on 21.01.2008. An application seeking employment for her son Sanichara was filed on 28.06.2008. This application was received in the office of the respondents on 30.06.2008. The petitioner and her son-Sanichara appeared before the Screening Committee on 09.04.2010. Finally, claim for compassionate appointment was declined on 17.01.2011 on the ground that son of the petitioner has crossed the age of 35 years. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit pleading that as on the date of application, that is, 28.06.2008 the claimant has attained the age of 35 years 02 months and 29 days. In the service-excerpts age of Sancihara-claimant has been recorded as 14 years as on 01.04.1987. In PS-3 Form his age has been recorded as 29 years as on 09.09.2002 and in L.T.C. Form-A his age was recorded as 21 years which was recorded as on 15.09.1995. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his age recorded in the service-excerpts the petitioner had not crossed the age of 35 years when his father died on 21.01.2008. Under Clause 9.3.4, the claimant should not be aged more than 35 years and there is no prescription that the claimant should not have crossed the age of 35 years as on date of application. Opposing the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Rajesh Lala, the learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited submits that age of the claimant recorded in the service-excerpts of the deceased employee is binding on him and moreover, in the application dated 28.06.2008, claim for compassionate appointment is founded on the entry in the service-excerpts itself. The learned counsel has relied on Clause 9.3.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement to support his contention that age of a claimant has to be reckoned as on the date of application. 4. The learned counsel has relied on Clause 9.3.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement to support his contention that age of a claimant has to be reckoned as on the date of application. 4. Clause 9.3.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement reads as under: “9.3.4The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. Insofar as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 5. In “Mohan Mahto Vrs. Central Coal Field Ltd. And Others” reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , it has been held that National Coal Wage Agreement, which is culmination of an agreement between the Central Government, Coal Companies and the Union is binding on the parties and it has attained statutory force. Clause 9.3.4 provides that a claimant should not have crossed the age of 35 years and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner it does not provide that as on the date of application the claimant should not have attained the age of 35 years. The petitioner had not attained the age of 35 years on 21.01.2008, when his father died in harness. The service-excerpts records age of the claimant as 14 years as on 01.04.1987. The respondent-Central Coalfields Limited has issued instructions whereunder an application can be submitted within 18 months of the death of the deceased employee. It is not in dispute that for compassionate appointment, a claimant is not required to undergo the regular appointment exercise. Now if a claimant can submit an application within 18 months and his age is reckoned as on the date of the application, the whole object for providing compassionate appointment may be frustrated. Present is a case of such nature. The claimant who was within the prescribed age limit when his father died on 21.01.2008, has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he had crossed the age of 35 years as on date of application. The application was submitted more than 05 months after the death of the employee. Present is a case of such nature. The claimant who was within the prescribed age limit when his father died on 21.01.2008, has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground that he had crossed the age of 35 years as on date of application. The application was submitted more than 05 months after the death of the employee. In a matter of this nature in which each day counts, such a flaw in the procedure adopted by the respondents has rendered the letter dated 17.01.2011 whereby the petitioner was communicated decision of the competent authority declining compassionate appointment to her son, unsustainable. The procedure adopted by the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited is faulty and it cannot be countenanced in law. Order contained in the impugned letter dated 17.01.2011 suffers from serious infirmity. 6. On the prayer for referring the matter for age determination before the Medical Board, it needs to be recorded that determination by Medical Board in the above facts would not be of any help. The petitioner, who is found otherwise eligible and within the prescribed age limit when his father died, has erroneously been denied offer of compassionate appointment. 7. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondent no.3-the General Manger (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited shall issue letter to the petitioner for completing formalities, if any, for appointment of her son namely, Sanichara.