Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Swati Salini appears on behalf of the respondent-CCL submits that admittedly, the copy of Aadhar Card and School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner was issued prior to the death of employee i.e. father of the petitioner and the same was submitted before the respondents, but as the petitioner was found to be of more than 35 years of age on the date of application for compassionate appointment and as such, he was subjected to age assessment by the Medical Board, which has assessed his age between 35 years to 40 years as on 12.04.2016. As per the existing Circular issued by the Director (P & IR), CIL, the mid-point has been taken into consideration while assessing the age of the candidates and as such, the petitioner’s mid-point of age assessment is 37 ½ years as on 12.04.2017 as per the policy decision. Learned counsel further argues that upon age assessment, he was found above the age of 35 years on the date of application also i.e. 14.01.2016 and accordingly his case was rightly rejected vide impugned order dated 14.07.2017. Learned counsel further argues that Circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all attracted in the instant case as the matter relates to compassionate appointment and respondents is governed by the Provisions of NCWA and as such, said Circular is not applicable.
