JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1 Learned Counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that cost of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of order dated 14.02.2025 has been received by the petitioners. They have argued the case on merits. 2 The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision of third Review Medical Board, whose decision has been notified vide order no. 4239 dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-6 to this writ application), whereby and whereunder father of petitioner no. 2 has been wrongfully considered as to be medically fit, without referring to the medical opinion of Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi (respondent no.4), and further to command upon the respondent no. 4 to provide a copy of medical report before this Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the father of petitioner no. 2 as to be medically unfit, as because father of the petitioner no. 2 has been undergoing mental depression and is under constant medical care and attention of respondent no. 4 and therefore, any decision in this relation being taken without consulting the respondent no. 4 is not correct, and is against their own decision that they have taken in 1 st and 2 nd Medical Board conducted and thereafter decision published vide order no 3625 dated 31.12.2014 and order no. 2284 dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure-4 series to this writ application) respectively. (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner no. 2 being son of aggrieved Krishan Nandan Prasad, employed under respondent Central Coalfields Limited, suffering from mental depression and unfit to attend the services since early 2014, as a fit case for appointment on compassionate basis after finding the father of the petitioner no. 2 as to be unfit for rendering further services under respondent Central Coalfields Limited, and after acceptance of the application preferred by the father of petitioner no. 2 as to be unfit for rendering further services under respondent Central Coalfields Limited, and after acceptance of the application preferred by the father of petitioner no. 2 before the respondent Central Coalfields Limited in due format vide application dated 17.02.2014 along with the form-I, duly filled and submitted under the provisions of Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement-V, 1996 (hereinafter called as NCWA-V, 1996), And/Or (D) For the issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) / order(s)/ direction (s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3 The undisputed facts are that the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no. 2 was an employee of respondent-CCL and he was scheduled to retire on 31 st March, 2016. It is further not in dispute that pursuant to scheme for grant of compassionate appointment under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-V,1996, the said employee applied for his examination regarding medical fitness on 18.02.2014. However, he was examined by the respondents in 1 st Medical Board on 31.12.2014 and in the report there were altogether three columns, namely, (A) Declared unfit, (B) Declared Fit and (C) Advised for Review and his name appeared at serial no. 3 under column ‘Advised for Review’ with note “with MRI report & psychiatrist opinion at higher centre”. It is further an undisputed fact that said employee again applied for medical examination and he was examined by Medical Board on 10.07.2015 and his name again fell under the column “Advised for Review” with note “report from CIP, Ranchi”. It is also not in dispute that the said employee again applied for medical examination and by this time, he was declared fit by the Medical Board in its report dated 22.12.2015. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on two occasions earlier, the report from CIP was to be considered, but in the 3 rd time, without taking care of the report of the CIP, Ranchi, the said employee has been declared fit. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said employee was examined at CIP Ranchi on 02.11.2015 and after he was declared fit on 22.12.2015, he again approached CIP, Ranchi, but none of the two reports been placed on record. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said employee was examined at CIP Ranchi on 02.11.2015 and after he was declared fit on 22.12.2015, he again approached CIP, Ranchi, but none of the two reports been placed on record. Learned counsel has submitted that the report was sent to the respondent-CCL directly by the CIP, Ranchi and therefore, the said employee was not aware as to the contents of the report, but the fact is that the said employee was taking medicines. He further submitted that National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is a beneficial scheme and therefore, the petitioner no.2 has to be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment as the said employee (father of petitioner no. 2) was suffering from ‘schizophrenia’ and he discontinued attending his duty right from February, 2014 itself and at that point of time, he had not attained the age of 58 years. 6 Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer. Referring to the Scheme itself, learned counsel has submitted that employment offered on account of disablement of workman is itself a compassionate appointment and the fitness of the concerned workman has to be seen prior to attaining the age of 58 years. Learned counsel has submitted that the employee was examined on 22.12.2015 by the Medical Board comprising not less than six Members and was found fit for job. The report has been annexed with the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that it is the satisfaction of the respondent-Company as to whether they would like to take work from the employee or not. It is also submitted that as per the petitioners the said employee was examined on 2.11.2015 by CIP and by that time, he had crossed the age of 58 years. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit to submit that it contains a list of disability which could be a reason for consideration of compassionate appointment and ‘schizophrenia’ is not mentioned in the said list and even otherwise also, the petitioner was not entitled for the reliefs as per clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit to submit that it contains a list of disability which could be a reason for consideration of compassionate appointment and ‘schizophrenia’ is not mentioned in the said list and even otherwise also, the petitioner was not entitled for the reliefs as per clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 333 of 2017 and has submitted that in the said judgment, the scheme has been considered and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 [ V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ] has also been considered, wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment and there will be a tendency on the part of the employee nearing the age of superannuation to take advantage of the scheme and seek voluntary retirement at the fag end of their service on medical grounds and thereby virtually creating employment by ‘succession’. 7 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly the said employee [father of petitioner no. 2] had applied for his examination regarding medical fitness on 18.2.2014, just less than a month prior to attaining the age of 58 years [ i.e. 4.3.2014]. When the said employee was examined for the 1 st time on 31.12.2014, he was neither declared fit nor unfit, but he was referred to be examined by higher centre. Again the said employee applied for medical examination and this time , that is on the 2 nd occasion, he was examined on 10.7.2015 wherein it was indicated that a report from higher centre is awaited. However, as per the case of the petitioners, the said employee was examined on 2.11.2015 and the examination report of 2.11.2015 has not been placed on record. It is the case of the petitioners that the report was dispatched by the CIP to the respondent-Company directly on 23.12.2015. However, prior to even dispatch of the said report, the employee was examined on 22.11.2025 and he was declared fit. 8 This Court is of the considered view that there is no declaration of unfitness of the said employee on 31.11.2014 or even on 10.07.2015 and ultimately on 22.12.2015, he was declared fit. However, prior to even dispatch of the said report, the employee was examined on 22.11.2025 and he was declared fit. 8 This Court is of the considered view that there is no declaration of unfitness of the said employee on 31.11.2014 or even on 10.07.2015 and ultimately on 22.12.2015, he was declared fit. The fact remains that said employee had applied for his examination for medical fitness just a few days prior to attaining the age of 58 years and it further appears from the rejoinder that the said employee was not attending the duty and remain absent, but nothing has been placed on record as to whether said employee ever applied for any leave on medical ground. 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that ultimately it is the opinion of the employer as to whether work is to be taken from an employee or not and the employee unilaterally stopped work from February, 2014 and admittedly, he was declared fit on 22.12.2015 prior to attaining his age of superannuation on 01.04.2016. 10. Law is well settled that the claim of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the said employee was never declared medically unfit on two dates of medical examination on 31.12.2014 and 10.07.2015 but his medical examination was subject to review by CIP and on the 3 rd occasion of medical examination by the medical board on 22.12.2015, he was declared fit for performance of duty prior to his superannuation on 01.04.2016 , this Court is not inclined to grant any relief of compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2 ( son of the employee) on account of medical ground of the employee while in service. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 11. The writ petition is dismissed.