JUDGMENT SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. I.A. No.260 of 2022 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 58 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A.No.260 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 58 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.372 of 2021 6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6879 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the order as contained in letter dated 28.11.2015 passed by the respondent-CCL, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and if there is no other legal impediment, issue letter of appointment to the writ petitioner, preferably within the stipulated period. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- The mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Niraso Devi was working as General Mazdoor, Category-I under the respondent no.4 and was declared medically unfit and directed to be retired on account of medical unfitness vide letter dated 14.07.2014. Upon receipt of the said letter, the mother of the writ petitioner made an application on 25.07.2014 before the respondent no.4 praying therein for appointment of his son (writ petitioner) on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause-9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.C.W.A.). The respondent CCL has forwarded the proposal of the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment to the Staff Officer (Personnel), Barkasayal Area, vide letter dated 28.01.2015, clearly mentioning therein that as per Form-F, the writ petitioner’s age on the date of application was more than 33 years. However, in place of offering appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, he was called upon to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. However, in place of offering appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, he was called upon to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. Thereafter, vide letter as contained in memo no.1517 dated 28.11.2015, it was informed to the writ petitioner that his age has been assessed as 37½ years as on 23.09.2015 by the Medical Board and accordingly, he was more than 35 years of age as on 25.07.2014, the date of application and hence, his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6879 of 2017 by taking the plea that the age of the writ petitioner has mechanically been assessed and even the medical report has not been given to the writ petitioner. It has been submitted that after receipt of letter dated 28.11.2015, by which, the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected, the writ petitioner made a representation on 30.11.2016 before the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ramgarh for his age assessment and vide letter dated 19.12.2016, the said Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ramgarh forwarded the request of the writ petitioner to the Superintendent, RIMS, Ranchi for assessment of age of the writ petitioner. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Superintendent, RIMS assessed the age of the writ petitioner and vide letter dated 25.01.2017 informed the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ramgarh that the age of the writ petitioner is more than 20 years and accordingly, the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ramgarh issued a certificate dated 15.03.2017 to the writ petitioner mentioning his age to be in between 21 years to 24 years. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that in the service records of his mother, the age of the writ petitioner was shown as below 35 years on the date of application but in spite of the same, he was forced to appear before the Medical Board, which was not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors.) and L.P.A. No.343 of 2017 (CCL Vs. Sahzad Alam & Ors.). The reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors.) and L.P.A. No.343 of 2017 (CCL Vs. Sahzad Alam & Ors.). While on the other hand, the respondent CCL has contested the case by filing the counter affidavit taking the ground to the effect that age of the writ petitioner has been shown as more than 35 years on the date of application for compassionate appointment i.e., 25.07.2014 and hence, for the purpose of assessment of his actual age, the writ petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board, which after examining the writ petitioner, found the age as 37 ½ years on the date of application and as such, since the writ petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit of 35 years, his case for appointment on compassionate ground has rightly been rejected. Learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL passed in L.P.A.No.117 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010 as also the order passed in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors. in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 dated 10.02.2021, has allowed the writ petition by showing interference with the impugned letter dated 28.11.2015 with a direction upon the respondent-CCL to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and if there is no other legal impediment, issue letter of appointment to the writ petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 8. Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-CCL has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, since, admittedly, the writ petitioner has crossed the age of 35 years, as such, there is no question of providing appointment under the condition of N.C.W.A. which prescribes the maximum age to offer appointment to be 35 years. But, the learned Single Judge without appreciating this aspect of the matter, since, has passed an order, therefore, the order impugned suffers from illegality and hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. But, the learned Single Judge without appreciating this aspect of the matter, since, has passed an order, therefore, the order impugned suffers from illegality and hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. The undisputed facts in this case are that the mother of the writ petitioner was declared medically unfit as per the communication as contained in letter dated 14.07.2014. Subsequently, the mother of the writ petitioner made an application dated 25.07.2014 before the respondent no.4, praying therein for appointment of his son (writ petitioner) on compassionate ground, in view of the condition as stipulated under Clause 9.4.0 of the N.C.W.A. The said claim has been considered but subsequently, it was rejected considering the age of the writ petitioner to be more than 35 years. The age of the writ petitioner was determined by the Medical Board, wherein, his age has been assessed as 37½ years as on 23.09.2015. The writ petitioner has disputed the said assessment of age by the Medical Board by producing the documents of his date of birth i.e., School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card and Voter ID card, wherein, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was below 35 years. The said documents have been issued prior to the date of application. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter i.e., the age of the writ petitioner which was mentioned in his School Leaving Certificate and Aadhar Card, which was issued prior to the date of application. The learned Single Judge has also considered the issue regarding possibility of errors of two years plus-minus, which fell for consideration before the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) and Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2010 while disposing of the said appeal has came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner could not have been denied compassionate appointment on the ground of variation of age. The learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors) disposed of on 10.02.2021. The learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors) disposed of on 10.02.2021. Learned Single Judge has further considered the correctness of the decision of constituting of Medical Board, since, there was no occasion for the same. Further, the decision of the appellants-CCL to accept higher age, has also not been considered, for the reason that the issue of compassionate appointment is a beneficial legislation and even if, the age of the applicant has been assessed in between a range, it is not appropriate to take the maximum age for consideration, rather, considering the object and intent of the act/agreement, the efforts should be to provide appointment by considering the lower range of the age. 11. This Court has considered the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) and found therefrom that if the appellant claims that her age was 43 years and the respondents considered her age as 45 years as such came to finding that 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. It appears from the impugned order that after the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the appellant of the said case, namely, Md. Rahim has been already been provided with the appointment on compassionate ground. 12. The question arises herein that the appellants-CCL being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, can be allowed to adopt the policy of pick and choose, as has been observed by this Court herein. Since, herein, the appellants-CCL has provided appointment in favour of one Md. Rahim, appellant in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010, wherein, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has observed that there is always possibility of errors of two years plus-minus and considering that aspect of the matter, the claim of appointment of her son on compassionate ground has been considered and accordingly, Md. Rahim was provided with appointment on compassionate ground. 13. This Court has put a pin-pointed question to the learned counsel for the appellants-CCL that as to whether, the fact about providing appointment in favour of Md. Rahim was provided with appointment on compassionate ground. 13. This Court has put a pin-pointed question to the learned counsel for the appellants-CCL that as to whether, the fact about providing appointment in favour of Md. Rahim is correct. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the said fact is correct, in that view of the matter, this Court is not appreciating the conduct of the appellants-CCL in questioning the decision of the learned Single Judge which is based upon the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL passed in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010, while the order passed by this Court in Md. Rahim’s case has been acted by providing appointment. This Court is further of the view that the appellants-CCL being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose policy. 14. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view by considering the fact that the appellants-CCL has also acted upon on the basis of the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 (Md. Rahim Vs. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery of CCL) and contrary to its acceptance of the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, since this appeal has been preferred, is not worth to be considered. 15. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 16. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, interlocutory application being I.A.No.665 of 2022 also stands disposed of.