JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s) specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondent authorities to appropriately consider the case of the petitioner's son for compassionate appointment and on due consideration grant appointment to petitioner's son on account of the fact that the petitioner suffered major accident on 18.10.2015, and thereafter, has been unable to perform his duties with the respondent authorities, in view of the provisions laid down under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IX. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s) specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding upon the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh Medical Board to test the fitness of the petitioner to render his services with the respondent authorities, immediately after his accident by an independent Medical Board comprising of specialist in the field, and further to declare the test result of the Company's Medical Board, the one declaring the petitioner as to be fit to perform his duties, as inapplicable, placing reliance upon different medical certificates and medical prescriptions, prescribed to him by different Medical Authorities and Medical Institutions like Gandhi Nagar Hospital of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and Christian Medical College of Vellore.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner met with an accident on 18.10.2015 and thereafter, on 10.11.2015, he applied for compassionate appointment of his son as he was not physically fit. Thereafter, a Medical Board was constituted which vide its report dated 23.07.2016 refused the case of the petitioner by stating that petitioner is physically fit. Thereafter, on 11.08.2016 even the Appellate Medical Board did not interfere with the decision of the Original Medical Board treating the petitioner to be fit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a specific provision under Clause-9.4.0 of NCWA-IX that in case of an employee who becomes medically unfit and is unable to discharge his duties, then his son or any of the legal heirs which comes under the Scheme, shall get a compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel contended that the Medical Board was not consisting of specialists Doctors. 4. Learned counsel contended that the Medical Board was not consisting of specialists Doctors. He further submits that though petitioner was having an injury on spinal cord which certainly comes under the arena of an “Orthopedician” but the Medical Board was consisting of standard General Physicians and no specialist was there and as such, the decision of the Medical Board itself is non est in the eyes of law and the same should be quashed and set aside and since Medical Board report itself has been given by Doctors who have no expertise; as such, after quashing the Medical Board report and Appellate Medical Board report, the legal heir of the petitioner may be given employment under the provisions of Clause-9.4.0 of NCWA-IX. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court towards para-20 of the writ application and submits that this specific statement has not been controverted by the respondents. For brevity, the same reads as follows: “ 20. ……………….. the action of the respondent authorities is highly arbitrary and illegal in view of the fact that the respondent authorities have not taken any reference from their expert body of the doctors in Gandhi Nagar Hospital of M/s. CCL, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, rather the matter was referred in usual course to the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board, constituting of the doctors of the standard of general physician, and no specialist, thereby seriously prejudicing the case of the petitioner.” 6. Relying upon the same stand that the Medical Board itself was not constituted of Specialist Doctors, learned counsel submits that legal heir of the petitioner deserves compassionate appointment as per law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the application made by the petitioner, he was referred to the Medical Board which met on 22.07.2016 and 23.07.2016 and he was declared fit for the job by the said Medical Board. Pursuant thereto and after the petitioner represented again for constitution of Appellate Medical Board, the same was constituted and petitioner was examined on 06.10.2016 and the Appellate Medical Board also recommended that the petitioner is fit for discharging his duties. He further submits that petitioner was in service till his natural date of superannuation and as such, petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 8. He further submits that petitioner was in service till his natural date of superannuation and as such, petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner met with an accident on 18.10.2015 and thereafter, he submitted an application on 10.11.2015 for employment on compassionate ground in respect of his son under the provisions of Clause-9.4.0 of NCWA-IX. From records it appears that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board which met on 22.07.2016 and 23.07.2016 and he was declared fit for discharging his duties. 9. Further, on application of the petitioner, the Appellate Medical Board was also constituted and the petitioner was declared fit vide its report dated 06.10.2016. However, instead of joining the service, the petitioner did not attend his duty and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 30.11.2016. 10. Subsequently, after a gap of almost 15 months, he approached this Court by filing the instant application. Now, in the year 2025, the petitioner cannot be re-examined after a gap of 9 years from the date of accident. 11. One of the arguments of the petitioner is that the petitioner should have been re-examined by fresh Medical Board on the basis of report of the year 2015 itself could not suffice the purpose because main prayer is of compassionate appointment and even remitting the case to the respondents for a fresh opinion by the fresh Medical Board would further lose the original character of compassionate appointment. 12. From record it further appears that in para-8 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have specifically mentioned that Clause-9.4.0(ii) specifically indicates that for compassionate appointment under this Clause, the employee should not have crossed the age of 58 years on the date of submission of application and in the instant case, the petitioner had crossed the age of 58 years on the date of submission of application and finally he retired from service on 30.11.2016. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.