JUDGMENT 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No.5590 of 2020 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 62 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard. 4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.5590 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 62 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.234 of 2019 6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of the Patna High Court, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2499 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 21/22.07.2017 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be enumerated, reads as hereunder: The brother of the writ petitioner namely, Suresh Singh Ghatwar, was appointed under the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited having his date of birth as 05.12.1963. The respondents-Central Coalfields Limited had prepared service excerpts issued on 18.04.1987 which shows the name of the writ petitioner as one of the dependants being his brother. The said Suresh Singh Ghatwar died on 04.06.2012 and thereafter his name was struck off from the roll. The writ petitioner had made an application for employment on 13.10.2012 in the prescribed manner but on enquiry it was found that the claim of the writ petitioner is not fit to be allowed for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that in the service excerpts the age of the writ petitioner has been recorded as 14 years on 01.04.1987 and hence on the date of death of his brother i.e. 04.06.2012, the writ petitioner was above the age of 35 years. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2499 of 2018 but the said writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge which is impugned in this memo of appeal on the ground that the age of the writ petitioner has been found to be more than 35 years as on the date of death of the employee. 8. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the age having been found to be more than 35 years is absolutely incorrect as because in the 'service excerpts' the age of the writ petitioner is found to be more than 35 years on the date of death of the employee but as per other document i.e. 'P.S-3 Form' his age has been shown below 35 years of age and as such, it was the requirement of the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited to get the writ petitioner examined. But, the respondent authorities, without examining the writ petitioner medically, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the fact that the writ petitioner has attained the age of more than 35 years while there is contradiction in the age. 9. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents-Central Coalfields Limited has submitted that the writ petitioner has been found above than the age of 35 years as per the service excerpts and taking into consideration the age of the writ petitioner found to be crossed the maximum age bar, there is no illegality in the impugned decision taken by the authorities. So far as the applicability of the Implementation Instruction No.76 is concerned, the same does not pertains to a candidate who is seeking appointment rather the same is to be taken into consideration only for the determination/verification of the age of the employees. The writ petitioner herein has not yet got the status of an employee as he is seeking employment on compassionate ground. He is still to enter in the service and therefore, there is no question of applicability of the Implementation Instruction No.76 and hence the learned Single Judge since has considered the entire aspect of the matter and declined to interfere with the impugned decision, the same cannot be suffer from infirmity and therefore, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. He is still to enter in the service and therefore, there is no question of applicability of the Implementation Instruction No.76 and hence the learned Single Judge since has considered the entire aspect of the matter and declined to interfere with the impugned decision, the same cannot be suffer from infirmity and therefore, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11. Undisputed fact of this case is that the brother of the writ petitioner had died in harness on 04.06.2012. The writ petitioner being the brother of the deceased employee had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground but his claim has been rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has attained the age of 35 years as on 01.04.2008. The writ petitioner claims that there is contradiction in the age as mentioned in the service excerpts wherein it has been reflected to be the age of 14 years as on 01.04.1987 while in the P.S-3 Form 18 years has been reflected on 27.05.1998 by which entry he has attained the age of 35 years on 27.05.2015 and therefore, he is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground on the date of death of his brother who died on 04.06.2012. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that since there is contradiction in the official record, as per Implementation Instruction No.76, the writ petitioner ought to have been referred before the Medical Board and having not done so, the respondent authorities has committed gross illegality. 12. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned decision of the authority as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, deem it fit and proper to deal with the Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988. The said instruction has been implemented for determination/verification of the age of the employees and for resolution of disputed cases of service record. It is evident from the said instruction that the procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employees is to be considered. The said instruction has been implemented for determination/verification of the age of the employees and for resolution of disputed cases of service record. It is evident from the said instruction that the procedure for determination/verification of the age of the employees is to be considered. Therefore, this Court, further deem it fit and proper to look into the Implementation Instruction No.76 and according to considered view of this Court, as would be evident from the content of the said instruction that the same is to be applied in case of determination/verification of the age of the employees since the said instruction has exclusively been framed to determine/verify the age of the employee/appointee. The writ petitioner has not got the status of employee since he is still contesting the case of appointment on compassionate ground, hence there is no question of applicability of Implementation Instruction No.76. Therefore, the contention as has been raised by the writ petitioner that his case ought to have been referred before the Medical Board is having no substance, accordingly rejected. 13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, admittedly the age of the writ petitioner has been found to be 14 years in the service excerpts on 01.04.1987. The brother of the writ petitioner died on 04.06.2012 and therefore, on the date of death of his brother, the writ petitioner, admittedly as per the service excerpts, had crossed the age of 35 years. It is further admitted position that under the National Coal Wage Agreement, the maximum age as per Clause-9.3.0 is 35 years. However, the writ petitioner is claiming by putting reliance upon P.S-3 Form wherein the age of the writ petitioner is 18 years on 27.05.1998 and has completed 35 years of age on 27.05.2015 and therefore, he is eligible for consideration having not crossed the age of 35 years. But the question is, P.S-3 Form is the self-declaration filled up by the concerned employee for pension while the service excerpts is prepared by the employer on the basis of the declaration furnished by the employee duly signed along with the authentication authority of the project and accordingly, in our considered view the age revealed in the service excerpts will have more conclusive effect than the age reflected in P.S-3 Form. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that since there is dispute in the age as has been mentioned in the service excerpts as 14 years on 01.04.1987 while in P.S-3 Form his age has been referred as 18 years on 27.05.1998 therefore, his case ought to have been referred before the Medical Board by the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited as per the Implementation Instruction No.76. But, we have already dealt with the Implementation Instruction No.76 by holding that the instruction contained in Implementation Instruction No.76 will not be applicable so far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned since the said Implementation Instruction No.76 is applicable only in case of an employee and the writ petitioner has not got the status of an employee. Writ petitioner's submission is that the assessment of his age made by the Medical Board duly been constituted and certified by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be less than 35 years as on the date of death of the concerned employee. However, the question is whether the said determination of the age of the writ petitioner by the Medical Board duly been certified by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro, can be said to be true? The answer of this Court will be negative as the writ petitioner has not furnished any details under whose direction the Medical Board had been constituted where the writ petitioner has been examined. It cannot be disputed that the Medical Board is only to be constituted by the order of the competent authority for examination of a person for his age assessment. However, in the case in hand as would be evident from Annexures-4 and 5, the writ petitioner has been examined by the said Medical Board, the certificate to that effect has been issued by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro but without any direction or reference of the competent authority, perhaps on the application of the writ petitioner itself which cannot be accepted. This amounts to creating further evidence, upon which the writ petitioner is insisting for his appointment. This amounts to creating further evidence, upon which the writ petitioner is insisting for his appointment. Based upon this report of the Medical Board, the writ petitioner has insisted that it is a fit case wherein writ petitioner ought to have been referred before the Medical Board since there is dispute in the age by applying Implementation Instruction No.76. The position of law is very clear that the date of birth mentioned in the service excerpts is having conclusive proof and when in the said document, the age of the writ petitioner has been mentioned as 14 years, therefore, he attained the age of 35 years much much before the date of death of the deceased employee and hence he having found to be not eligible under maximum age bar criteria, the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner by the Management, cannot be said to be improper. 15. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner is not below the age of 35 years which is the mandatory condition for appointment as under Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, based upon this the respondent authority has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. Therefore, showing no interference with the said impugned decision by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to be improper. 16. In view thereof, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, requires no interference. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.