JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the letter dated 25.04.2016 contained in Annexure 10 issued by respondent company regretting the application of the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred in short 'N.C.W.A.') and for exemplary cost to the petitioner for unnecessary harassment by the respondents. 2. The brief facts, as has been delineated in this writ petition is that the petitioner's father Ghanua Mahto died in harness on 12.05.2014 was working as Pump Khalasi Cat. II in the respondent company at Kuju Colliery, Kuju Area, who was duly appointed on 29.10.1979 having Date of Birth 15.10.1954 and C.M.P.F. A/c No. R/523247 which is evident from the service excerpts dated 05.04.1987. After the death of his father, the petitioner made representation on 15.07.2014 before the Project Officer, Kuju Colliery intimating death of his father and seeking employment on compassionate ground in the place of his father/deceased employee under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A. The mother of petitioner was not keeping good health and as such the mother nominated the petitioner for employment under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A. Vide letter dated 19.01.2016, the petitioner was directed by Deputy Manager (Personnel) Kuju Colliery to appear before Medical Board, Gandhinagar Hospital, Ranchi for the purpose of assessment of his age. The claim of petitioner under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A was regretted vide letter being no. PO/MP/Kuju/16/1798 dated 25.04.2016 issued by the Manager (P/MP)respondent no.4 on account of over age and on the date of his representation dated 02.09.2014 his age was assessed by the Medical Board of the respondent company (CCL) as 37? years as on 20.01.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh appears on behalf of the petitioner and argues that Aadhaar Card bearing no.6471 8027 0063 has been issued to the petitioner which shows his Date of Birth as 16.06.1986. The Date of Birth has also been mentioned as 16.06.1986 in the School Transfer Certificate where the petitioner was a student and studied up to Class VIII. A declaration has been made by the petitioner vide Affidavit dated 24.08.2015 regarding his Date of Birth to be 16.06.1986. The Date of Birth has also been mentioned as 16.06.1986 in the School Transfer Certificate where the petitioner was a student and studied up to Class VIII. A declaration has been made by the petitioner vide Affidavit dated 24.08.2015 regarding his Date of Birth to be 16.06.1986. Learned counsel submits that refusal to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and illegal. Learned counsel further submits that respondent company Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.) is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited which is a Government of India undertaking and as such "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondent being "State" are bound to act within the four corners of the statute. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to strengthen his argument relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 01.12.2010 passed in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 and also in W.P.(S) No.7576 of 2006 dated 08.07.2010 in which this Court has decided the same issue as involved in the instant case and as such keeping in view the ratio of the judgment delivered by this Court, the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents and submits that as per the service records of the deceased employee the Date of Birth/age of the petitioner on the date of application of the compassionate appointment i.e. on 02.09.2014 comes as follows: Service Records of the deceased Date of Birth Age as on 02.09.2014 Service Sheet Excerpts 01/04/78 36 Years LTC Form A 04/08/78 36 Years PS-3 16.06.1978 36 years Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was referred to the Medical Board consisting of specialist for assessment of his age and on the basis of physical and radiological examination, age of the petitioner was assessed to be between 35 years to 40 years on 20.01.2016 and according to his date of birth as per the company's norms was derived to 20.07.1978. In consideration of the petitioners said date of birth i.e. 20.07.1978 his age was found more than 35 years on the date of application for compassionate appointment i.e. on 20.09.2014. In consideration of the petitioners said date of birth i.e. 20.07.1978 his age was found more than 35 years on the date of application for compassionate appointment i.e. on 20.09.2014. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for considering his case for employment on compassionate ground under the relevant provisions of N.C.W.A. and accordingly his case was rejected by a letter dated 25.04.2016. 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves reconsideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents are relying on the assessment of the Medical Board and that of the age mentioned in the service excerpts, cannot be considered to be full proof entered into realm of judging the age of applicant. In my considered opinion, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion of definite nature when age can be considered by the nature which is required to be established. There is always possibility of error of two years plus/minus. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied for appointment on compassionate ground. From the records of the case, I find that different age of the petitioner at the instance of his father was recorded at different point of time which itself suggest that age recorded in the document of the employer must not have been based on any document showing age of the petitioner, rather whatever would have been disclosed by the father of the petitioner, an illiterate person that was recorded in those documents and, therefore, entry made in those documents relating to age of the petitioner cannot be taken to be conclusive proof. In that event and also keeping in view the fact that the determination of age by the Medical Board was between 3540 years on 20.01.2016. It is settled principle of law that in case of determination of the age by the Medical Board the minimum age is to be taken into consideration not the maximum age. Therefore, fact remains that on the date of making application the petitioner was 35 years of age and therefore the case of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected on the ground of radiological examination that his age was assessed to be more than 35 years. 6. Therefore, fact remains that on the date of making application the petitioner was 35 years of age and therefore the case of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected on the ground of radiological examination that his age was assessed to be more than 35 years. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules and guidelines, I am of the considered view that rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is unreasonable and as such fit to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated 25.04.2016 contained in Annexure 10 is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent CCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed.