JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 26.11.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No.7704 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 22.07.2017 by which the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder: Father of the writ petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1984 as Driver under the respondent-CCL and was working in KDH Colliery. He was suffering from kidney and eye problem and, in that view of the matter, he offered for voluntary retirement under the policy of the respondent-CCL and requested to provide employment to the writ petitioner, who happens to be his son. However, he was declared fit and accordingly request for voluntary retirement was turned down by the authorities. Again on 25.02.2014, the father of the writ petitioner made an application before respondent No.5 stating therein that he is suffering from acute kidney problem etc. and as such, he made a prayer for providing employment to the writ petitioner under Para 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. The said application was forwarded to the competent authority and the father of the writ petitioner was found to be medically unfit vide letter dated 13.01.2015. The father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 10.09.2015. Thereafter, the case of the writ petitioner was turned down on the ground that he was overage. The writ petitioner has come to this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking the plea that the writ petitioner has produced Aadhar Card and Driving License, etc., to show that his age was below 35 years but it has not been considered by the respondent-CCL in its right perspective. Further ground has been taken that the writ petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi, whereby, his age has been assessed as 30 to 35 years. It has also been submitted before the learned Single Judge that in view of the provision of N.C.W.A., the case of the writ petitioner is fit to be considered and the writ petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. It has also been submitted before the learned Single Judge that in view of the provision of N.C.W.A., the case of the writ petitioner is fit to be considered and the writ petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. On the other hand, respondent-CCL took the plea before the learned Single Judge that the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been rejected by the competent authority because the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Gyanchand Prasad was designated as Dumper Operator at Rohini Project of N.K. Area and he died on 10.09.2015. The father of the writ petitioner applied for appointment of his son i.e. the writ petitioner, under para 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A. The respondent-CCL has fairly declared him unfit after medical examination. It has also been submitted that the application of the writ petitioner was considered and sent to Central Hospital, Gandhi Nagar for the purpose of pre-employment age assessment. He appeared before the Board on 24.05.2017, wherein, his age was determined and assessed as 37 1/2 years. The date of birth of the writ petitioner on the date of submission of his application, i.e., on 20.02.2015 stood as 24.11.1979 and as he was 35 years 02 months and 26 days, as such, was not allowed compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid argument and the condition stipulated under NCWA, has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA under which the provision has been made to provide appointment to the dependant of the employee who, if, declared to be medically unfit and took voluntary retirement but has been considered under para 9.3.0 of the NCWA, which is highly improper and arbitrary action on the part of the authority but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Ms. 4. Per contra, Ms. Puja Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been considered under para 9.3.0 because even though the father of the writ petitioner was declared to be unfit but, before consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, the father of the writ petitioner died on 10.09.2015, therefore, there is no question of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA since the father of the writ petitioner died before taking final decision under para 9.4.0., as such, the case has rightly been considered under para 9.3.0 of the NCWA. She further submits that either under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 of the NCWA, the maximum age prescribed for appointment is 35 years but the writ petitioner had already crossed the age of 35 years, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered under para 9.4.0 being over-age, therefore, what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner pertaining to providing appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be provided on the ground that the writ petitioner has already crossed the maximum age of 35 years. According to her, learned Single Judge considering these aspects of the matter is correct in dismissing the writ petition which suffers from no infirmity. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The undisputed fact in this case is that the father of the writ petitioner while working under the respondent-CCL in KDH Colliery claims to suffer from kidney ailment, as such, made an application for declaring himself unfit and in his place to provide appointment in favour of his son, i.e., the writ petitioner. 6. The father of the writ petitioner made such prayer in view of the condition stipulated under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA, however, the father of the writ petitioner was not declared medically unfit by the medical board, therefore, no positive consideration has been made on the application submitted by the father of the writ petitioner to provide appointment in favour of the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the father of the writ petitioner again suffered from serious ailment, therefore, he had again made application to declare him medically unfit and was declared medically unfit by the medical board vide letter dated 13.01.2015 but the father of the writ petitioner died on 10.09.2015. 7. The admitted fact is that before taking final decision under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA, the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 10.09.2015, thereafter, the case of the writ petitioner was considered under 9.3.0. However, on consideration it has been found that the writ petitioner has crossed the maximum age of 35 years in assessment of his age by the medical board since the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be 37 1/2 years. The National Coal Wage Agreement either under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 provides maximum age for consideration for appointment as 35 years. 8. Para 9.4.0 of the NCWA stipulated a condition to provide appointment in a case where the father is declared to be medically unfit, he can replace himself from his dependant by taking voluntary retirement but the prescription of maximum age is 35 years as would appear from para 9.4.0 of the NCWA which reads hereunder as: “9.4.0 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. The term “general physical debility” would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease or other health reason leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or efficiently. (iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependant on the earning of the employee may be considered. In so far as the female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of clause 9.5.0. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependant on the earning of the employee may be considered. In so far as the female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of clause 9.5.0. (iv) The 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. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 9. Further the condition stipulated under 9.3.0 of the NCWA stipulated a condition to provide appointment in a case of death of the bread earner while in harness but the prescription of maximum age herein also is 35 years as would appear from para 9.3.0 of the NCWA which reads hereunder as: “9.3.0. Provision of Employment to Dependants 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such directed dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.4 the 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 give in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 10. Thus, it is evident that the maximum prescribed age either in the case of consideration under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 of the NCWA is 35 years. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 10. Thus, it is evident that the maximum prescribed age either in the case of consideration under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 of the NCWA is 35 years. While considering the case of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was subjected to medical examination by constituting medical board in which the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be 37 1/2 years, therefore, the writ petitioner has been found to have crossed the maximum prescribed age, i.e., 35 years, as such, as per the impugned order annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, the case of the writ petitioner has been rejected finding him not eligible. 11. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case ought to have been considered under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA but instead of considering his case in the said provision, his case has been considered under para 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 12. This Court, after considering the said ground, is of the view that either under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 of the NCWA the maximum age prescribed for appointment is 35 years and the writ petitioner since has crossed the age of 35 years, such plea would not be available for the writ petitioner to claim himself to be appointed either under para 9.4.0 or 9.3.0 of the NCWA. 13. Even accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in the second medical examination, the father of the writ petitioner has been found to be medically unfit as would appear from the report of the medical board dated 13.01.2015, before taking such decision, the father of the writ petitioner died in harness, therefore, the respondent authority has applied the provision provided under para 9.3.0 which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error for the reason that under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA condition stipulated therein is that the appointment to a dependant will be provided in a case of separation from services of the bread earner, i.e., father or mother, in favour of the dependant on the ground of medical unfitness. In the case in hand, the father of the writ petitioner was declared to be medical unfit but no such decision would have been taken by the authority and in the meanwhile, the father of the writ petitioner had died, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been considered under para 9.3.0. Further, no material change would be there in the given facts of the case because even accepting the case of the writ petitioner to be considered under para 9.4.0 of the NCWA, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be fit for appointment due to having crossed the maximum prescribed age for appointment, i.e., 35 years as the medical board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be 37 1/2 years, which has never questioned by him. 14. The learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter in detail as would appear from the discussion made in the impugned order and after considering the fact in entirety and taking into consideration the ineligibility of the writ petitioner by crossing the maximum prescribed age as provided under NCWA, has refused to interfere with the order passed by the administrative authority which according to our considered view, suffers from no infirmity. 15. According, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.