JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length on various dates. Concerned lawyers had no objection with regard to the proceeding which was held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter was reserved for Judgment and is being disposed of finally. PRAYER 2. In the instant writ application prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writs, orders or directions or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017, whereby the respondent no. 7 declined claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of overage. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation/objection dated 22.05.2018 against the said order of rejection and further to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground within a specified period. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner’s father namely Budhan Bhuiyan was a permanent employee of the respondent no. 1 and was working to the post of Operator in Kathara Washery and died in harness on 28.07.2014. Thereafter, on 20.07.2015, petitioner’s mother namely Basanti Devi made an application nominating him for employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. Petitioner also submitted employment proposal with PAN Card and School Leaving Certificate showing to have left school after passing Class-VII. His date of birth was recorded as 16.03.1986 and he left the school on 25.12.1995 and as such, his age was less than 35 years on the date of filing of application on 20.07.2015. 4. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and by letter no. 1038, dated 06.09.2016, the same was forwarded by the Staff Officer (Personnel and Administration) Kathara before the respondent no. 4 for employment of the petitioner. However, by impugned letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017, the respondent no. 4. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and by letter no. 1038, dated 06.09.2016, the same was forwarded by the Staff Officer (Personnel and Administration) Kathara before the respondent no. 4 for employment of the petitioner. However, by impugned letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017, the respondent no. 7 communicated to the Staff Officer to the effect that the Medical Board, after assessing age of the petitioner on 25.01.2017, found it in between 35 – 40 years and by taking midpoint, petitioner’s age was assessed to be 35 years 11 months and 25 days and, therefore, his claim for employment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of over age. Thereafter, petitioner raised objection before the respondent no. 6 with a copy to other respondents vide its representation dated 22.05.2018 contending therein that his date of birth as recorded in different documents is 16.03.1986 and as such he was just 28 years of age on the date of filing of application. However, petitioner has not yet been provided any intimation regarding decision on his objection and as such he has preferred instant writ petition. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 5. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondents have acted with a pre-determined mind and rejected claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of overage whereas petitioner was merely 28 years of age on the date of application. The age is to be assessed on the date of death of employee and not on the date of application. Learned counsel further argues that the decision with regard to age assessment by the Medical Board is also not correct as the minimum age was shown to be 35 years but the same has not been accepted. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order denying employment on ground of overage is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority of law. 6. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order denying employment on ground of overage is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Judgment dated 10.02.2021, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others passed in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019 as also the Judgment dated 07.01.2020, passed in the case of The Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. Fulmatia Devi and Others in L.P.A. No. 307 of 2018 and the Judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 343 of 2017, CCL vs. Sahzad Alam and Others. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7. Ms. Rashmi Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited strenuously urges that instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Petitioner was found to be overage and he has no case to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel further argues that the instant writ petition itself is not maintainable before this Court as an appropriate authority and the forum has been created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the writ application is fit to be dismissed. Drawing attention of this Court towards paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that on the date of application for compassionate appointment i.e. 20.07.2015 age of the petitioner was more than 35 years. Drawing attention towards the provision under NCWA, learned counsel submits that the same specifically provides that the dependants of the deceased employee be considered for employment who is 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. Learned counsel submits that the provision clearly speaks that the maximum age limit for dependents would not be more than 35 years and since petitioner has already completed more than 35 years of age and as such, his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is not sustainable and has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel further argues that in view of decision taken in J.C.S.C. Meeting and circulated vide no. Learned counsel further argues that in view of decision taken in J.C.S.C. Meeting and circulated vide no. 831, dated 22.10.2014, if an applicant submits certificates other than Matriculation Certificate such as Voter I.D. Card, Aadhar Card, Driving License, Ration Card, Birth Certificate under relevant Act and School Transfer Certificate, in which his age is recorded below 35 years, in that condition age of the claimant will be assessed through Medical Board. Learned counsel further submits that the documents must be issued prior to the death of the employee. In the instant case, only School Leaving Certificate has been issued prior to date of death of the deceased employee and all the documents shows conflicting date of birth of the petitioner. As per norms of the Company, petitioner had undergone radiological examination and his age was assessed to be between 35-40 years on 25.01.2017 and as per company’s norms, taking midpoint of age range, his age was fixed as 37½ years and as such, his claim for compassionate appointment has been rightly rejected. 8. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of CCL vs. Dara Singh and Others, 2019 SCC Online Jhar. 586 (LPA No. 493 of 2017) and CCL vs. Prashant Kumar Oraon and Others, 2019 SCC Online Jhar. 575 (LPA No. 429 of 2017). Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the Judgment dated 14.03.2019, passed in L.P.A. No. 429 of 2017 (Central Coalfields Limited vs. Prashant Kumar Oraon) and submits that it is not function of the writ Court to determine age of an employee/applicant. The writ court would step in and interfere with the decision of the authority fixing age of an employee/applicant only when the decision is found arbitrary and illegal. It is for the employer to fix the criteria for appointment and lay down the procedure for selection. The employer may prescribe a procedure/guidelines for fixation of age of an applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the Scheme of compassionate appointment must be enforced in terms of the Scheme itself as has been held in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 . FINDINGS OF THE COURT 9. The employer may prescribe a procedure/guidelines for fixation of age of an applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the Scheme of compassionate appointment must be enforced in terms of the Scheme itself as has been held in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 . FINDINGS OF THE COURT 9. Before going to the legality and propriety of the impugned order, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts of this case, as has been pleaded by the parties, which transpires that the writ petitioner has claimed appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of NCWA on account of death of his father, who died in harness. Petitioner made his application for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. Petitioner claimed to be within the age of 35 years and to substantiate this, he has enclosed copy of the School Leaving Certificate and the PAN Card. The respondents authorities came to a finding about variation in age in different documents, including the service excerpts of the deceased employee and therefore, at the time of consideration of case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board for the purpose of assessment of his age and thereafter, his claim has been rejected on the ground that he was found to be overage, as discussed hereinabove. 10. It is settled proposition of law that benevolent provisions should be construed taking into consideration the dominant purpose of the statute, intention of the legislature and underlying policy as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers’ Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Others, 1983 AIR 75 and Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India and Others, (1999) 6 SCC 459 wherein it has been held that it would be the duty of the Court to interpret the provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule. The respondent Central Coalfields Limited has not considered this aspect of the matter even though an agreement has been entered into by way of National Coal Wage Agreement, which is a beneficial piece of agreement as per provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make out provision for providing appointment in case of death of bread earner by way of social security measures, meaning thereby, the NCWA which is having a statutory fervor, as because the agreement has been entered in view of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confers statutory force to the agreement and as such, the same ought to have been considered by the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited taking into consideration the object and intent of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. Before coming to any conclusion, it is relevant to quote paragraphs-9, 12, 15 and 16 of the Judgment passed in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019 which reads as under: “9. It needs to clarify herein that the document dated 07.07.1992 speaks about assessment of the age of the employees but we are dealing with a case where the writ petitioner has not got the status of an employee and, therefore, the decision of the respondent CCL as contained in letter dated 07.07.1992 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. .................. 12. It is admitted by the respondent CCL that the Medical Board is constituted in case of discrepancy in the age. .................. 12. It is admitted by the respondent CCL that the Medical Board is constituted in case of discrepancy in the age. We are not disagreeing with the said policy decision but the question is that while constituting a Medical Board, there must be conscious decision by the competent authority in the backdrop of the factual aspect but we repeatedly asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL to place on record any decision of the competent authority to constitute a Medical Board to assess as to what led the competent authority of the respondent CCL to constitute the Medical Board but surprisingly no such decision has been produced, however, a noting sheet has been produced by way of affidavit dated 09.02.2021, wherein a hand written script has been placed on record under the signature of the General Manager (P&IR) referring therein that due to discrepancy in the age of the writ petitioner having been mentioned in L.T.C. forms, PS-3 and PS-4, a decision was taken to constitute a Medical Board but anything contained in the noting sheet cannot be said to be a decision in the eyes of law if the same has been taken by the competent authority after deliberating upon the issues and communicating to all concerned for its execution/implementation and, therefore, we are left with no option but to hold that the decision of the respondent CCL asking the writ petitioner to go for the medical examination is in absence of any decision of the competent authority. .................. 15. it requires to refer herein about the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2010, dated 01.12.2010, which has been brought on record wherein also the issue fell for consideration about judging the age of the appellant on medical opinion and therein it has been observed that if the petitioner’s claim that her age is 43 years and the respondents considered that as per the medical evidence her age is 45 years, then there always possibility of errors of two years (plus/minus) and in that view of the matter the claim of the petitioner’s mother could not have been denied on compassionate ground. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuant to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2010 [Md. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuant to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2010 [Md. Rahim vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery] the appellant namely Md. Rahim has already been provided with the appointment which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jagdish vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others in W.P. (S) No. 3339 of 2016 wherein also the dispute about the age has been set at rest by the opinion of the Medical Board after assessment of the age of the writ petitioner in that writ petition which has been questioned by the writ petitioner on the ground that when the age of the writ petitioner is available in other records, what is the necessity to go for the Medical Board and in that view of the matter, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to appoint the writ petitioner of the said writ petition on compassionate ground. We are taking note of this order even though the same has been passed by the learned Single Judge only due to the reason that the respondent CCL, in pursuance to the said order, has acted upon by providing appointment to the writ petitioner of the said case without assailing the same before the higher forum and, therefore, according to us, the approach of the respondent CCL, being the machinery of the State, cannot be of pick and choose policy i.e. to assail one order and accept another order on almost same set of facts. 16. 16. We, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, have gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found there from that the learned Single Judge has simply gone across the contention of the respondent CCL wherein the respondent CCL has contended about the age of the writ petitioner to be 37½ years which has been considered to be more than the maximum age of 35 years and, therefore, writ petition has been dismissed but we, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, are of the view that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact in entirety as per the discussion made hereinabove and reached to a wrong conclusion by approving the decision of the respondent CCL which, according to us, cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law.” 12. The paragraphs 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15 of Judgment dated 14.03.2019, passed in the case of Central Coalfields Limited vs. Prashant Kumar Oraon and Others in L.P.A. No. 429 of 2017 cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is also relevant to be quoted herein, which reads as under: “7. Under letter dated 07.07.1992, of the M/s. Coal India Limited, procedure for determination of age on the basis of the recommendation of the Age Assessment Committee has been laid down. It provides as under: (a) Where no age is recorded in respect of any employees in any statutory records, and the Medical Board/Age Assessment Committee decide an age range, the mid point of the age range so recommended will be taken as the age of the concerned employees. For instance, if the range decided is 50 and 55, the age of the employee concerned will be 52 years 6 months. (b) Where there is variation of age in the various statutory records, the nearest point of the age range as recorded in Form-B register will be accepted as the age of the employee concerned. 8. Subsequently, to provide maximum benefit under the social security measures under the National Coal Wages Agreement, vide letter dated 22.10.2014, the claimants/dependents of the deceased employee have been provided an opportunity to get their age assessed through the Medical Board if they are in possession of Aadhar Card, driving license, Voter’s ID Card, ration card, school living certificate etc. 8. Subsequently, to provide maximum benefit under the social security measures under the National Coal Wages Agreement, vide letter dated 22.10.2014, the claimants/dependents of the deceased employee have been provided an opportunity to get their age assessed through the Medical Board if they are in possession of Aadhar Card, driving license, Voter’s ID Card, ration card, school living certificate etc. under which their age is recorded different from what has been recorded in the service - linked records of the ex-employees. The respondent has produced copies of Voter’s ID Card, Aadhar Card etc. which, according to him, reflect his correct age and on that basis he is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. .................. 10. By now it is well-settled that the scheme for compassionate appointment must be enforced in terms of the scheme itself [Refer: Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. 11. In the service-linked records of his father as well as his mother, both were employed under M/s CCL, age of the respondent is recorded as 16 years in the year, 1995. In the gratuity nomination form his age is recorded as 16 years as on 18.10.1995, though there is some dispute raised by both the parties whether it should be 11.01.1995 or 23.05.1996. In Form-F, his age is reflected as 16 years as on 20.11.1995, whereas as per his age recorded in the Voter’s ID Card he was about 25 years in the year 2015 and on the basis of the Aadhar Card, he was 34 years of age in the year 2015. 12. Apparently, there is huge discrepancies in the record produced by the respondent himself; about 10 years of gap in his age. Still, in terms of the directions as contained in letter dated 22.10.2014, he was called for his age assessment. The respondent’s age was accordingly assessed by the Apex Medical Board, which has given a report that his age would be in the range of 35 to 40 years. .................. 15. The employer-M/s. CCL through letter dated 07.07.1992, has laid down a procedure for determination of age on the basis of recommendation of the Medical Board. This letter was not challenged by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Age of the respondent has been assessed pursuant to the guidelines contained in letter dated 22.10.2014 and in terms of the procedure prescribed under letter dated 07.07.1992. This letter was not challenged by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Age of the respondent has been assessed pursuant to the guidelines contained in letter dated 22.10.2014 and in terms of the procedure prescribed under letter dated 07.07.1992. We do not find any illegality in the assessment of age of the respondent on the basis of the procedure laid down under letter dated 07.07.1992. It is primarily for the respondent to explain why there is such huge discrepancy in his date of birth, but he has miserably failed to give any plausible explanation for the same.” 13. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the various documents were produced by the petitioner and examined by the respondents which includes different certificates wherein it has clearly been mentioned that the age of the petitioner was below 35 years. The said documents were issued prior to the date of application. The said documents were never disputed or disbelieved rather the same were illegally and arbitrarily not considered for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 14. The issue regarding possibility of errors of two years plus-minus fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) and this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2010 disposed of the said Appeal holding therein that the petitioner could not have been denied compassionate appointment on the ground of variation of age. The said view was reiterated by this Court in LPA No. 687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. CCL and Others) disposed of on 10.02.2021. 15. In the instant case also the decision of constituting a Medical Board was erroneous as there was no occasion for the same. The decision of the respondent-CCL to accept higher age is not at all acceptable to this Court. The appointment on compassionate ground is a beneficial legislation and it cannot be the sweet-will of the respondents to consider one view which suits them and to reject the other view which does not suit them. Pick and choose policy has always been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court. The appointment on compassionate ground is a beneficial legislation and it cannot be the sweet-will of the respondents to consider one view which suits them and to reject the other view which does not suit them. Pick and choose policy has always been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court. The respondent-CCL being machinery of the State cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method to reject one order and to accept another order of almost same set of facts. This view was also taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 687 of 2019, disposed of on 10.02.2021. 16. In case of Jagdish vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Others in W.P. (S) No. 3339 of 2016, the dispute about the age has been set at rest by the respondent-CCL on the opinion of the Medical Board after assessment of the age of the writ petitioner in that case which was questioned by the writ petitioner on the ground that when the age of the writ petitioner is available in other records what was the necessity to go for the Medical Board and in that view of the matter the writ petition was allowed by this Court with a direction to appoint the writ petitioner of the said case on compassionate ground. 17. Further in LPA No. 117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL), disposed of on 01.12.2010, the same issue fell for consideration about judging the age of appellant on medical opinion and therein also it has been observed that if the appellant claims that her age is 43 years and the respondents considered that as per the medical evidence her age is 45 years then there is always possibility of errors of two years plus/minus and in that view of the matter the claim of the appellant’s mother could not have been denied for providing appointment of her son on compassionate ground. After the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the appellant of the said case namely, Md. Rahim has already been provided with the appointment on compassionate ground. 18. After the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the appellant of the said case namely, Md. Rahim has already been provided with the appointment on compassionate ground. 18. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL on the judgment of Division Bench passed in LPA No. 493 of 2017 (CCL vs. Dara Singh and Others) is not at all acceptable to this Court as the said judgment is per incuriam. The issue has been set at rest in LPA No. 117 of 2010, which has not been challenged before the Higher Court. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3141 of 2016 (Sahzad Alam vs. CCL and Others) disposed of on 28.10.2016, wherein this Court has observed that: “In view of the fact that certificate was issued after proper verification by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand, there was no occasion to disbelieve the certificate and the age assed by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand unless the said certificate is cancelled by a proper verification and enquiry by the competent authority and as such there was no occasion to disbelieve the same. The assessment of age by the Medical Board cannot be taken to be a gospel truth and cannot be accepted in view of the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand.” 19. The respondent-CCL has tested the said order of learned Single Judge before the Division Bench in LPA No. 343 of 2017 (CCL vs. Sahzad Alam and Others) and also before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 44322/2018 (CCL vs. Sahzad Alam and Others) and has lost at both the Forum and hence, the order of learned Single Judge has attained finality. Further, the Division Bench in LPA No. 687 of 2019 was of the same view and the divergent view of the learned Single Judge was rejected. 20. In view of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the impugned letter no. 829, dated 28.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-CCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and if there is no other legal impediment, issue letter of appointment to petitioner, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. 829, dated 28.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-CCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and if there is no other legal impediment, issue letter of appointment to petitioner, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Resultantly, the instant writ application stands allowed.