JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 1/2.04.2008 whereby respondent no. 4 purported to have communicated the petitioner that his application for employment under 9.3.0 has been rejected on the ground of age and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to provide employment under Para 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (NCWA-VI) within a specified period. 2. The facts, in brief, is that father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Trammer in Underground Sirka Colliery died in harness on 22.03.2005. The petitioner, being the son of the deceased-employee and having qualification of Intermediate of Arts submitted an application in the month of October, 2005 on compassionate ground under the provisions as contained in Para 9.3.0 of the NCWA-VI before the competent authority and after lapse of about three years, the respondents-authorities communicated letter dated 1/2.04.2008 denying employment to the petitioner due to overage, which is impugned before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.11.1971, as mentioned in matriculation certificate, which is a conclusive piece of evidence while deciding date of birth. But, only because of some entry made by the deceased-father of the petitioner in the service excerpts, which is not correct and even for that the petitioner made application for necessary correction, the respondents-authorities are reckoning the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in service excerpts and denying the benefit of compassionate appointment. It has further been submitted that on bare perusal of service excerpts of the father of the petitioner, it is amply clear that even the father of the petitioner raised objection with regard to wrong entry of age of the petitioner but till his lifetime, the same was not corrected. It has further been submitted that very object and purport of the provision under Para 9.3.0 of the NCWA-VI for employment on compassionate ground due to premature death of only earning member of the petitioner has been frustrated due to deliberate and willful delay on the part of respondents. It has further been submitted that the respondents even had sent the certificate for verification and it was verified by the concerned Board to be genuine one, before passing impugned order. It has further been submitted that the respondents even had sent the certificate for verification and it was verified by the concerned Board to be genuine one, before passing impugned order. But, even then they changed their mind and passed the impugned order. 4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s B.C.C.L & Ors as reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (F.B.). 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application by advancing an argument that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, which he can raise before Industrial Tribunal. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though in the application seeking compassionate employment the petitioner has written his date of birth as 04.11.1971 but as per the service excerpts of the father of the petitioner, he crossed the age of 35; hence as per the agreement (NCWA) entered between the parties, he is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Even otherwise also, as per the objection raised by the father of the petitioner , the petitioner's date of birth is 01.04.1973 whereas in Matriculation Certificate, his date of birth is 04.11.1971, which itself shows there is considerable variation in date of birth, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that by efflux of time the intent and very purpose of giving compassionate appointment has been frustrated. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, there is no shadow of doubt or debate that as per matriculation certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.11.1971. So far as genuinity of the matriculation certificate is concerned, it is respondents, who themselves before passing impugned order has verified the certificate of the petitioner and found the same to be genuine one. Besides, it is well settled proposition, as has been enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that in case of date of birth dispute, the matriculation certificate is conclusive piece of document. Besides, it is well settled proposition, as has been enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that in case of date of birth dispute, the matriculation certificate is conclusive piece of document. In one of the illuminated decision rendered in the case of Kamata Panday (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration various facts and number of decisions at paragraph 29 has categorically held on the specif question framed by this Court that “The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records …..”. Furthermore, it is nowhere the case of the respondents that the petitioner passed the matriculation examination after the death of his father leaving room for doubt that the petitioner had at any point of time had any intention to submit wrong date of birth. 7. From the pleadings available on record, it further appears that the father of the petitioner after coming to know that the entry of date of birth of the petitioner in service excerpts is wrong had made an application for correcting the same but during his life time, it was not corrected. 8. From perusal of record, it further appears that immediately after the death of his father, the petitioner well within time submitted application for compassionate appointment, hence, the submission advanced by counsel for the respondents that by efflux of time the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment has been frustrated has no legs to stand. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, memo dated 1/2-4-2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to provide employment to the petitioner taking into consideration the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate. It is made clear that the period of time between October, 2005 i.e. submission application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner till 27.02.2018 i.e. the date of passing of this order shall not come as bar for reckoning the age for the purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.