Consistent documentary proof of age prevails over imprecise medical assessment in compassionate appointment claims.

The petitioners were the minor children of Late Shiv Shankar Ram, a regular employee of Central Coalfields Ltd. who died in harness on 12 March 2021.

Their mother had predeceased their father, leaving the three children orphaned.

The petitioners sought inclusion of petitioner no. 2, Tanus Kumar, in the “Live Roster” under paragraph 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX so that he could be considered for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority, and sought monetary compensation for petitioner no. 1 until that time.

The petitioner no. 2’s date of birth was consistently recorded as 21 October 2008 in the deceased employee’s service records, school records, Aadhaar card and other documents.

Although the respondents initially referred the matter for verification, the claim was rejected after a Medical Board assessed his age as 13 years on 4 August 2022, leading the respondents to calculate that he was below 12 years on the date of his father’s death and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the Live Roster.

The petitioners challenged the rejection order dated 8/9 July 2024, communicated on 1 August 2024.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting petitioner no. 2’s inclusion in the Live Roster on the basis of the Medical Board’s age assessment, despite consistent contemporaneous records recording his date of birth as 21 October 2008?

Whether petitioner no. 1 was entitled to monetary compensation under the applicable NCWA provisions until petitioner no. 2 attained the age of 18 years?

The Court applied NCWA-IX, particularly paragraph 9.3.0, governing compassionate appointment and the maintenance of a Live Roster for eligible minor dependants.

It relied on CCL Implementation Instruction No. 76, clause (A)(ii), under which the date of birth recorded in a School Leaving Certificate is to be treated as correct and is not to be altered.

The Court further applied the principle that medical, radiological or ossification-based age assessments are estimates and are not conclusive, with an acknowledged margin of error, as held in Mukarrab v. State of U.P., (2017) 2 SCC 210.

Relying on Ajay Kumar Dubey v. Central Coalfields Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 908 of 2025, decided on 21 January 2025, the Court held that a Medical Board cannot accurately determine age and that an undisputed School Leaving Certificate may be accepted as reliable proof of age.

It also relied on Nand Lal Soren v. CCL & Ors., W.P.(S) No. 2790 of 2020, and other decisions holding that NCWA is a social-security scheme to be construed liberally and that, in cases of minor age variation, the age favourable to the beneficiary should be considered.

The Court found that the petitioner no. 2’s date of birth—21 October 2008—was consistently reflected in the deceased employee’s service book, the dependent-inclusion records, school records, Aadhaar card and subsequent CBSE Class X marksheet, with no material variation.

Under Implementation Instruction No. 76, the school record was a reliable basis for determining his date of birth, and the respondents had not challenged the genuineness of the school certificate.

The failed verification of the earlier birth certificate did not invalidate the other contemporaneous records, particularly as the subsequently computerised birth certificate also recorded the same date of birth.

In any event, the Medical Board itself assessed the petitioner’s age within a range of 12 to 15 years, while the respondents treated 13 years as an exact age and thereby excluded him by only a few months from the minimum age requirement.

Applying the recognised limitations of radiological age assessment and the liberal, social-security-oriented interpretation of NCWA, the Court held that the favourable and consistently documented date of birth had to be accepted.

The rejection order dated 8/9 July 2024 was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to include petitioner no. 2’s name in the Live Roster under NCWA-IX.

The Court further directed respondent no. 2 to verify the relevant records and extend monetary compensation to petitioner no. 1 under the applicable NCWA provisions within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.