Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination Of Compassionate Appointee Over Age Dispute, Says Such Claims Cannot Be Kept Pending Indefinitely

"Prayer for compassionate appointment ought not to be kept pending for an indefinite period of time." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the termination of a provisional employee who was dismissed on grounds of being overage, while dealing with a dispute over age determination via an ossification test.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha observed that an appointment on compassionate grounds is meant to cure immediate financial destitution, directing the authorities to reinstate the petitioner within four weeks while declining the grant of back wages.

The petitioner’s father died in harness in January 2021 while serving as a Safai Karmachari at Kalla Central Hospital. The petitioner was immediately granted a provisional appointment on compassionate grounds, but it was terminated six months later after an Initial Medical Examination declared him overaged and suffering from low vision under The Mines Rules, 1955. Following conflicting medical reports regarding his age, and after an Apex Medical Board cleared his vision as normal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking reinstatement.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner's provisional appointment was rightly terminated on the ground that he exceeded the maximum age limit of 35 years prescribed under the National Coal Wages Agreement-VI (NCWA). The court was also called upon to determine if a fresh ossification test with a narrower age bracket was warranted to definitively ascertain his age.

Court Notes Discrepancies In Age Assessment

The court observed that the petitioner’s age was assessed differently by three separate medical boards. While the Initial Medical Examination Board placed him between 33 to 38 years, the Apex Medical Board found him to be between 35 to 40 years. Subsequently, an ossification test conducted by SSKM Hospital, pursuant to the High Court's interim direction, assessed his age between 30 and 40 years.

Application Of The Midpoint Formula

The bench noted the respondent's internal policy for resolving uncertain age assessments, which involves taking the midpoint of the age bracket provided by medical experts. Applying this formula, the court observed that the SSKM Hospital's report yielded a mean age of 35 years. This mean age exactly aligns with the prescribed upper age limit for appointments under the prevailing National Coal Wages Agreement-VI.

Plea For Fresh Ossification Test Rejected

The respondents relied on a Division Bench ruling in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sujala Ankure to argue for a fresh test at AIIMS, Kalyani, to yield a narrower five-year age bracket. The court rejected this contention, distinguishing the precedent on facts, noting that the cited case involved doubtful circumstances regarding a mother and child's age. The bench remarked that the prior Division Bench order affirming the SSKM hospital test had attained finality.

"Appointment on compassionate ground is considered only when the family of the deceased employee is suffering from acute financial crisis and is not in a position to have two square meals a day."

Delay Defeats The Purpose Of Compassionate Engagement

Highlighting the underlying objective of such appointments, the court emphasised that they are meant to rescue families facing acute financial crises following the death of a breadwinner. The bench noted that the petitioner had been litigating since 2022 after losing his father in 2021. The court strictly deprecated the delay, observing that a fresh test would cause "not only injustice but severe prejudice to the petitioner."

Petitioner Was Within Age Limit At Time Of Appointment

The court applied a chronological logic to the medical findings to grant relief to the petitioner. Noting that the ossification test yielding a mean age of 35 was conducted in 2024, the bench reasoned that the petitioner would have been substantially younger at the time of his initial engagement. The court held that a minor age difference at the time of providing appointment would not cause much harm to the respondent authorities.

"...it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was certainly under 35 years of age in the year 2021, when compassionate appointment on provisional basis was provided to him."

No Back Wages Granted To Petitioner

While ordering reinstatement, the court explicitly declined to grant back wages to the petitioner. The bench reasoned that the respondent authorities could not be faulted for initially relying on the assessments made by their own medical boards, which had placed the petitioner above the prescribed age limit. The court observed that the initial provisional appointment letter was strictly subject to the compliance of rules, including medical check-ups.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of termination. The respondent authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service based on the SSKM Hospital's ossification test report, positively within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026