JUDGMENT : The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the writ Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Authority as contained in letter no.1487 dated 08.06.2017, by which, the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father was appointed on 01.12.1975 with the respondent CCL and he was working in Bhurkunda Colliery. In the service excerpt issued in favour of the writ petitioner’s father, the age of the writ petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 11 years as on 01.04.1987. The writ petitioner has produced the various documents showing his date of birth as 26.07.1985. The father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 19.02.2015. The writ petitioner has made an application for his employment under the provision of Para 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.). The respondent-CCL in view of the discrepancy in the age of the writ petitioner appearing in the service excerpt of the father of the writ petitioner and his age appearing on the document furnished by him, he was asked to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. The Medical Board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner as 37 1/2 years on the date of his application and as such, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected considering the maximum age of the writ petitioner for appointment, as per the N.C.W.A. to be 35 years vide decision, as contained in letter dated 08.06.2017. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the Administrative Authority, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017 taking the plea therein that the writ petitioner has produced the Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate etc. to show that his age was below 35 years which has not been considered by the respondent-CCL in the right perspective. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the Administrative Authority, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017 taking the plea therein that the writ petitioner has produced the Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate etc. to show that his age was below 35 years which has not been considered by the respondent-CCL in the right perspective. The other issues have also been agitated that in view of the provision of N.C.W.A., the case of the writ petitioner is fit to be considered in right direction and the writ petitioner was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent-CCL has taken the plea that the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Brij Lal was designated as Store Keeper at Bhurkunda Colliery and he died in harness on 19.02.2015. After the death of the employee, the mother of the writ petitioner, namely, Smt. Ramsakhi Devi submitted a representation on 26.03.2016 for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. It has been submitted that as per the provision of N.C.W.A., the maximum age limit of dependent for compassionate appointment is not required to be more than 35 years. However, the age of the writ petitioner was more than 35 years on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, therefore, such claim has been rejected. It has further been stated that the Medical Board has assessed the age of the writ petitioner to be in between 35 to 40 years as on 12.04.2017 and as such, the respondent-CCL, by taking into consideration the decision contained in circular dated 07.07.1992, the mid-point of the age of the writ petitioner has finally been assessed, as per which, the writ petitioner has been found to be more than 35 years, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner has rightly been rejected. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Authority, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has refused to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Authority, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective, reason being that, the midpoint of the age which has been assessed as 37 1/2 years by assessing the age of the writ petitioner in between 35 to 40 years, which was based upon the circular dated 07.07.1992, provides that the mid-point of the age of the concerned employee will be considered, but, according to the learned counsel, the circular dated 07.07.1992 will not be applicable for the purpose of consideration of candidature of the candidate for appointment on compassionate ground, since, the said circular speaks about the consideration of age of an employee, therefore, the writ petitioner, herein, since is yet to be inducted in service, as such, the circular dated 07.07.1992 cannot be made applicable. Further, submission has been made that since, the provision of N.C.W.A. has been carved out by way of beneficial piece of decision, as such, even if the age of the writ petitioner has been determined in between 35 to 40 years, then also, the minimum age, i.e., the age of 35 years ought to have been taken into consideration and if that approach would have been taken, the writ petitioner would have been found to be within maximum age and in that circumstances, the writ petitioner would have been provided appointment on compassionate ground. But the said aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge properly, therefore, the order impugned requires interference. 4. Per contra, Mr. But the said aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge properly, therefore, the order impugned requires interference. 4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the issue of applicability of circular dated 07.07.1992, whereby and whereunder, the mid-point of assessed age is required to be considered only for the employee, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019, but even accepting the said submission to be correct, then the writ petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionated ground, taking into consideration the fact that the father of the writ petitioner while giving the details at the time of availing the LTC facilities has furnished the age of the writ petitioner as on 31.01.1984 to be 8 years and even after 3 years again the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 11 years and thereafter, as per the age furnished in PS-3 and PS-4 form, the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 31 years as on 23.12.2007 and as such, as per the service record of the deceased employee, the date of birth/age of the writ petitioner, on the date of application for compassionate appointment, i.e., on 26.03.2016 came to be, as per LTC option form, 40 years and 1 month and as per PS-3 and PS-4 form, 39 years and 3 months, which admittedly, was beyond the age of 35 years, therefore, there is no question of providing appointment in favour of the writ petitioner who admittedly having crossed the age of 35 years. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that considering the specific stand taken on behalf of the respondent-CCL with respect to the age of the writ petitioner which having been more than 35 years, if the case of the writ petitioner will be rejected for appointment on compassionate ground, the said decision taken by the Administrative Authority, cannot be said to be improper. Therefore, the final outcome of the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, no interference has been shown to the decision of the Administrative Authority by dismissing the writ petition, cannot be said to suffer from an error, and as such, the instant appeal may be dismissed. 5. Therefore, the final outcome of the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, no interference has been shown to the decision of the Administrative Authority by dismissing the writ petition, cannot be said to suffer from an error, and as such, the instant appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the father of the writ petitioner has died on 19.02.2015 and thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as per the provision of Para 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A. on 26.03.2016. Further admitted fact is that the writ petitioner was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of his age, in which, the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years. The respondent-CCL has applied the circular dated 07.07.1992, wherein, the decision has been taken to take the mid-point of the range of the assessed age of the Medical Board and accordingly, the mid-point of the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be 37 1/2 years. The Administrative Authority has taken decision by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, considering the fact that the writ petitioner has crossed the maximum age of 35 years. The aforesaid order has been assailed before this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7727 of 2017, which having been dismissed, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 7. The contention has been raised that once the writ petitioner has been referred before the Medical Board for assessment of his age, in which, the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years, therefore, the minimum age, i.e., the age of 35 years ought to have been taken into consideration for providing appointment on compassionate ground, taking the intent of the provision of N.C.W.A., which is a piece of beneficial decision taken by the authority concerned. Further contention has been raised that the mid-point of the range of the age in between 35 to 40 years, i.e., 37 1/2 years, since it is based upon the circular dated 07.07.1992 which admittedly is not applicable for the candidate who is yet to be appointed, rather, the same is applicable to the employee who is in service, therefore, taking decision on the basis of the circular dated 07.07.1992 by the respondent-CCL cannot be said to be proper. The ground has been taken that the issue of applicability of the decision of the authority as per the circular dated 07.07.1992 fell for consideration before this Court in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019 dated 10.02.2021, wherein, the finding has been arrived at about non-applicability of the said circular for the candidates who are yet to be appointed. 8. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has agitated the issue even accepting that the mid-point of the age should not have been taken by not making the circular dated 07.07.1992 applicable in the facts of the case, but even in that case, the case of the writ petitioner is not fit to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, reason being that, as per the record furnished by the father of the writ petitioner at the time of availing LTC i.e., on 31.01.1984, wherein, the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 8 years. Subsequently, at the time of submission of PS-3 and PS-4 form i.e., on 23.12.2007, the age of the writ petitioner has been shown to be 31 years and 3 months and as such, the age of the writ petitioner at the time of filing of application for compassionate appointment, i.e., on 26.03.2016 is more than the age of 35 years, therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. This Court, on consideration of the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect about non-applicability of the circular dated 07.07.1992, is of the view that the said circular in the facts of the given case will not be applicable, as has been held by us in LPA No.687 of 2019 dated 10.02.2021. 9. This Court, on consideration of the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect about non-applicability of the circular dated 07.07.1992, is of the view that the said circular in the facts of the given case will not be applicable, as has been held by us in LPA No.687 of 2019 dated 10.02.2021. But, this Court is required to consider that even if, the said circular is not applicable in the facts of the given case, can the writ petitioner be held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, on the basis of the declaration furnished by his father at the time of availing the benefit of LTC. The fact about description of age of the writ petitioner furnished by his father at the time availing LTC has specifically been stated in the counter affidavit as under para 20 and 21 which reads as under:- “20. That on receipt of above application, the available service records of the deceased employee was verified and found that the name and age of the petitioner recorded in the under mentioned records are as follows:- As per LTC Option Form of deceased employee Late Brij Lal Sl. No. Name Relation Age as on 31.01.1984 1. Sri Ganesh Kumar Son 08 years As per PS-3 and PS-4 Form of deceased employee Late Brij Lal Sl. No. Name Relation Age as on 23.12.2007 1. Sri Ganesh Kumar Son 31 years 21. That as per the above service records of the deceased employee the date of birth/age of the Petitioner on the date of application for compassionate appointment i.e. on 26.03.2016 came as follows:- Service Records of Deceased Age as on 26.03.2016 LTC Option Form 40 years and 1 month PS-3 & PS-4 Form 39 years and 03 months It is the further admitted fact that the said averment has not been disputed by the writ petitioner, since, no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. The aforesaid aspect of the matter automatically compelled us to come to the conclusion that whatever has been stated with respect to details of furnishing the age of the writ petitioner by his deceased father, as has been stated in the counter affidavit as under para 20 and 21 has been admitted. The aforesaid aspect of the matter automatically compelled us to come to the conclusion that whatever has been stated with respect to details of furnishing the age of the writ petitioner by his deceased father, as has been stated in the counter affidavit as under para 20 and 21 has been admitted. It is evident from the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent-CCL that admittedly as on the date of application dated 26.03.2016, the age of the writ petitioner was more than 35 years. 10. This Court has also considered the case from different angel in order to see about the assessment of the age by taking the mid-point of the age in between 35 to 40 years i.e., 37 1/2 years and has found the age which has been disclosed by the father of the writ petitioner as per the statement made in the counter affidavit as under para 20 and 21, as quoted and referred hereinabove, derives the conclusion about the correctness of the assessment of the age of the writ petitioner by taking the mid-point of the range of the age i.e., 37 1/2 years. 11. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since, it is the self-disclosure of the father of the writ petitioner about the age of the writ petitioner and after taking into consideration the aforesaid age on the date of application, admittedly, the writ petitioner has crossed the minimum age of 35 years, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 12. This Court, however, requires to refer herein the issue of the statement made in the counter affidavit as under para 20 and 21 has not been referred in the impugned order, since, it is available in the counter affidavit, therefore, the same has been taken into consideration by this Court in order to arrive at the conclusion about the outcome of the writ petition and basis upon which, we are of the view that the outcome of the writ petition, since, is showing no interference with the decision of the Administrative Authority, by which, the appointment on compassionate ground has not been provided, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 13. Accordingly, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove and according to our considered view, the instant appeal lacks merit. 14. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.