Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of a reasonable period and the object of compassionate appointment is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by the sudden demise of the earning member of the family.

( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for compassionate appointment. Her husband, late Kalyan Nath Banerjee, while working and being attached to the H. T. X. R. Section of the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Department under the Kolkata Port Trust, died-in-harness on 05. 11. 92. On 01. 12. 92, by annexures P-2, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the said application, the Junior Assistant Secretary - II in the administration Department of the said Port Trust, vide Annexure P/3, sent a letter asking the petitioner to appear in a written test which was scheduled to be held on 24. 9. 95 at 10:00 a. m.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, and as has been stated in paragraph 5, she was selected for compassionate appointment (Last 'c') vide serial No. 13 in the year 1996. However no supportive document (s) in support of such a contention has/have been brought on record save and except a mere bald statement.

( 3 ) IT is her further case that she did not get any information thereafter and therefore, she filed a representation before the Chairman of the Port trust, vide Annexure P-4. This was sent on 10. 2. 98. The petitioner has stated that she has been given false assurances to the effect that she would be appointed but nothing has been done till date.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 9, the petitioner has stated that as per records, her date of birth is 12. 12. 1955.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforementioned facts and pleadings, the petitioner has asserted that the respondents, having not issued any appointment letter till date, have frustrated the aims of a Welfare State and that their inaction is illegal and/or that the respondents should have taken action immediately after the death of her husband.

( 6 ) THIS Court is however unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. From her own statement, made in paragraph 9, it is evident that the petitioner's date of birth is 12. 12. 1955. In other words, she crossed the age of 50 on 13. 12. 2005 and therefore, as on date, she is not eligible for any post, being barred by age.

( 7 ) OTHERWISE also, the petitioner cannot get any relief as prayed for, in view of the reasons set out hereinafter.

( 8 ) IT is true that her hushand had died-in-harness on 05. 11. 92. It is also true that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 01. 12. 92 vide Annexure P-2. It is also noted, as per the statement made by the petitioner that she was allegedly selected in the year 1996 but thereafter, the respondents did not issue the appointment letter. However, and as observed earlier, no supportive document (s) in support of such a contention has/have been brought on record. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument but not admitting the same in any way, even if it is presumed that she was selected in the year 1996 as alleged, there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the petitioner as to what prevented her from coming to this Court immediately after 1996. The only explanation that the petitioner has attempted to give is in paragraph 8, where she has stated that "being a helpless lady she could not come to the Hon'ble Court earlier. " this is hardly an explanation that deserves any merit.

( 9 ) HER own inaction therefore has made her case "time-barred" in addition to being "age-barred. " Moreover and in the opinion of this Court, a seeker of compassionate appointment, does not have any right to assert that he must necessarily be appointed merely because his or her predecessor-in-interest died-in-harness.

( 10 ) IN a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, delivered in the case of Haryana. State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. , reported in 1996 (8) SCC 23, Their Lordships, following the judgment of Umesh kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, have held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of a reasonable period and that the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception