ORDER : Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing letter no. P.B.P.C/Personnel/2020/95 dated 14/25.05.2020 issued by the Manager (Personnel), Putki Balihari Project Colliery, whereby the petitioner has been informed that further process for his employment on compassionate ground cannot be continued, since his age has been assessed by the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad as 37½ years, whereas the maximum age limit for employment has been fixed as 35 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Radhey Singh (hereinafter referred as the deceased employee) was initially appointed in the service on 19.02.1987 at Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L as a “Miner Loader” and in course of time he was transferred to Putki Balihari Project Colliery where he was working as “Tyndal”. 3. It is further submitted that the age of the petitioner was mentioned in the service excerpts of his father as 01.01.1987 and the respondents never raised any objection to the said entry till his life time. His father died in harness on 05.08.2018 and the petitioner submitted application before the Deputy General Manager, Putki Balihari Project Colliery on 29.04.2019 requesting his appointment on compassionate ground. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not having any formal qualification and in his Aadhar Card, the date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1987 which is consistent with the entry made in the service excerpts of the deceased employee. 5. It is further submitted that the Manager (Personnel), P.B.P Colliery vide letter under Ref. No.PBPC/PO/ Medical/2020/11 dated 3/4.01.2020 advised the petitioner to appear before the Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad on 14.01.2020 and, accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the said Medical Board, however vide impugned letter No. 95 dated 14/25.05.2020, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Putki Balihari Project Colliery, the petitioner was informed that the process of his appointment could not be completed since the maximum age limit for appointment was fixed as 35 years whereas the age of the petitioner was determined by the Apex Medical Board as 37½ years. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner represented the respondent authorities on 23.10.2021 requesting consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, however, no further action was taken by them in this regard, which has compelled him to file the present writ petition. 7. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner represented the respondent authorities on 23.10.2021 requesting consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground, however, no further action was taken by them in this regard, which has compelled him to file the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 1301. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was interpolation in the service excerpts of the deceased employee and the petitioner by declaring himself to be illiterate did not submit any document pertaining to his educational qualification, he was subjected to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age as per Annexure-I of the Implementation Instruction No.76 dated 25.04.1988, Clause (A) sub-clause (iv), which provides for determination of the age at the time of appointment when a candidate is illiterate. 9. It is further submitted that the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Apex Medical Board in its meeting held on 15.01.2020 and the age assessment report was forwarded by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer I/c, Apex Medical Board, Koyla Nagar Hospital, Dhanbad on 20.03.2020 to the competent authority for approval wherein the age of the petitioner was assessed in the range of 35-40 years and the final age was assessed by the Board as 37½ years and as such, the claim of the petitioner was denied. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention puts reliance on the following judgments: (i) Mukesh Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited (L.P.A No. 168 of 2021) (ii) Ganesh Kumar Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited & Others (L.P.A No. 311 of 2021) (iii) Central Coalfields Limited through HOD (Personnel-Admn), Sri Sanjay Kumar Vs. Prashant Kumar Oraon and Others (L.P.A No. 429 of 2017), reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 575 (iv) Central Coalfields Limited through its General Manager (Administration) Vs. Tirath Mahto & Others (L.P.A No. 275 of 2017), reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 50. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Prashant Kumar Oraon and Others (L.P.A No. 429 of 2017), reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 575 (iv) Central Coalfields Limited through its General Manager (Administration) Vs. Tirath Mahto & Others (L.P.A No. 275 of 2017), reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 50. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the service excerpts of petitioner’s father as well as in the Aadhar Card of the petitioner, his age has been consistently recorded as 01.01.1987 and as such at the time of his medical examination by the Apex Medical Board on 14.01.2020, he was 33 years old. Thus, the impugned decision whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by treating his age as 37½ years, is arbitrary and illegal. 13. It is evident from the service excerpts of deceased father of the petitioner that he had two sons and one daughter. Further, in the said service excerpts, the age of the elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Arun Kumar Singh is recorded as 04.02.1982 and the age of the petitioner is recorded as 01.01.1987 whereas the age of his sister is recorded as 15.03.1984. Thus, as per the age recorded in the service excerpts of the deceased employee, the age of the petitioner was 33 years at the time of appearing before the Apex Medical Board. 14. The claim of the respondents is that there is manipulation in the age of the petitioner in the service excerpts of the deceased employee and as such his age was assessed by the Apex Medical Board in its meeting held on 15.01.2020 as 37 years 6 months. 15. The respondents have not claimed any manipulation in the age of brother and sister of the petitioner. If the age of the elder brother of the petitioner is calculated on the date the Apex Medical Board was held i.e. on 14.01.2020 on the basis of his age recorded in the service excerpts, his age would come as 37 years 11 months and 10 days which is just 5 months and 10 days more than the age of the petitioner assessed by the Apex Medical Board, which is not possible. 16. 16. Moreover, sister of the petitioner is also elder to him, thus the age of the petitioner assessed by the said Medical Board is apparently not logical. That apart, the entry of the petitioner’s age in the service excerpts of the deceased employee was never objected by the respondents during his life time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the claim of interpolation made in the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the service excerpts of his deceased father, has been raised for the first time before this Court and the respondents have failed to bring any such decision before this court whereby the petitioner was referred to the Apex Medical Board in order to corroborate the claim that the age of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board due to interpolation in the service excerpts of the deceased employee. 17. This Court has perused the judgment rendered in the case of Tirath Mahto (Supra.) as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The fact of the said case was that different dates of birth of the petitioner were recorded at different point of time in the service excerpts, LTC Form A and Form PS-3 at the instance of his deceased father. Hence, he was referred to the Medical Board which determined his date of birth as 20.07.1978 whereas in the Aadhaar Card and School Transfer Certificate, his date of birth was recorded as 16.06.1986 and no plausible explanation was given by him for such wide variation. Due to said inconsistency found in the date of birth of the petitioner of that case, he was examined by the Medical Board and his age was assessed as 37 ½ years in terms with the instructions contained in letter dated 07.07.1992. 18. In the case of Ganesh Kumar (Supra.), the fact was that as per the service excerpts of the deceased employee as well as the assessment of the Medical Board, the petitioner of that case had crossed the age of 35 years and as such learned Division Bench rejected the claim of the said writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 19. 19. In the case of Prashant Kumar Oraon (Supra.) the fact was that the age of the petitioner of that case in the service records of the father and mother was recorded as 16 years in the year 1995 whereas in the voter ID card, his age was recorded as 25 years in the year 2015 and in the Aadhaar Card, his age was recorded as 34 years in the year 2015. Thus, there were many discrepancies in the documents brought on record by the said writ petitioner without any plausible explanation. In such circumstance, he was called for his age assessment by the Apex Medical Board, which assessed his age as 35-40 years in which learned Division Bench did not find any infirmity. 20. The aforesaid judgments rendered by learned Division Bench as relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. Here, both in the service excerpts of the deceased employee and in the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner, his date of birth has consistently been recorded as 01.01.1987. 21. In the case of Mukesh Prasad (Supra.), the Medical Board had assessed the age of the petitioner as 37½ years and as such his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. However, the fact was not available in the said case as to what was his age recorded in the service excerpts of his father and thus the said case is also not applicable in the present case. 22. This Court also perused the judgment of Lilwa Bhuiyan (Supra.) as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case, the petitioner’s age was written as 18 years as on 28.05.1998 in PS-3 and PS-4 Forms of his mother and on that basis, he was 33 years 6 months and 21 days at the time of death of his mother. However, on the basis of different age recorded in the LTC form, he was asked to go for medical assessment wherein his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years and by taking the mid-point of five years i.e. 35-40 years, his age was assessed to be 37 ½ years and his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 23. However, on the basis of different age recorded in the LTC form, he was asked to go for medical assessment wherein his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years and by taking the mid-point of five years i.e. 35-40 years, his age was assessed to be 37 ½ years and his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 23. Learned Bench of this Court held that since in the LTC Form-A, there was no signature of the employer as well as the date was also not mentioned, the same would not prevail over PS-3 or PS-4 Forms. It was further held that the petitioner’s age mentioned as 18 years on 28.05.1998 in PS-3 and PS-4 Forms could only be said to be a valid one and therefore, there was no requirement to constitute a Medical Board. It was also held that NCWA is a beneficial piece of statutory agreement as per section 18(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which also contains the provision of appointment by way of social security measures in case of death of bread earner. The Bench also referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Textile Workers’ Union etc. Vs. P.R Ramakrishnan and Others reported in AIR 1983 SC 75 and Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 6 SCC 459 wherein it was 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 provision. 24. This Court is of the view that the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim as on the one hand, his age was consistently recorded as 01.01.1987 in the service excerpts of the deceased employee as well as in his Aadhaar Card, whereas on the other hand, his age was assessed by the Apex Medical Board as 37 ½ years which does not appear to be logical if the same is compared with the undisputed age of the brother and sister of the petitioner as recorded in the service excerpts of his father. The respondents have failed to consider that the scheme for compassionate appointment is a beneficial one and as such liberal interpretation is required to be given to any provision relating to compassionate appointment. The respondents have failed to consider that the scheme for compassionate appointment is a beneficial one and as such liberal interpretation is required to be given to any provision relating to compassionate appointment. Unless there is a concrete evidence to show that the dependent of the deceased has crossed the age of 35 years on the date of submitting the application, such claim is required to be considered on merit with positive mindset. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, letter no.P.B.P.C/ Personnel/2020/95 dated 14/25.05.2020 issued by the Manager (Personnel), Putki Balihari Project Colliery is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground by taking into consideration his date of birth as 01.01.1987. 26. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.