(1) THIS application, in spite of notice, is unopposed either by filing affidavit-in-opposition, though direction was given at one point of time and also by appearance, though repeated notices were served and such last notice was served on 10th January, 2008 pursuant to our earlier direction dated 10th January, 2008. Affidavit of service is kept on record. Hence, we have no option but to proceed with the hearing in absence of the State.

(2) THIS application has impugned the order of the learned Tribunal dated 21st September, 2004 whereby and where under the application filed before the learned Tribunal for obtaining relief for compassionate appointment, was rejected. Short fact, for which the application before the learned Tribunal was filed is as follows:

(3) THE applicant is the son of one Late Birendra Nath Barman. He has sufficient educational qualification and he belongs to the scheduled caste community. His father died in harness on 16th December, 1999. Consequent upon his death, under the relevant rules the applicant applied on 21st December, 2000 for compassionate appointment. His application was duly processed and examined by the department. By an order dated 26th September, 2002, the Director of Health Services rejected the prayer observing that need for immediate financial assistance is absent in the instant case. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing an application before the learned Tribunal being O.A. No. 433 of 2003. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 30th July, 2003, setting aside the order passed by the director and directing the Director to consider the matter by passing a speaking order.

(4) PURSUANT to the said order, the Director of Health Services passed an order assigning reasons that on scrutiny of the papers it was revealed that the family left behind by said Birendra Nath Barman consisted of his widow, two sons and two daughters. The family received around Rs. 3,45,620/- as death benefit and was entitled to family pension of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It was felt by the Director that on receipt of the aforesaid amount and monthly amount of family pension, financial crisis owing to the death of the deceased employee is over and, therefore, there is no reason to give any compassionate appointment. Against this order, the applicant approached the learned tribunal with the second application being O. A. No. 980 of 2004.

(5) MR. Ashok Maity, appearing for the applicant has drawn our attention to the impugned order of the learned Tribunal and contends that truly speaking learned Tribunal has not decided anything nor applied its mind, while examining the grievance of the applicant made in the application. Impugned order of the learned Tribunal is a reproduction of the order of the director, which was impugned.

(6) WE have gone through the order dated 21st September, 2004 and we find some substance in the submission of Mr. Maity that learned Tribunal has not decided anything at all and had merely accepted what the Director has observed in his order, which was impugned. We fail to understand as to why the Tribunal has failed to discharge its duty to adjudicate the matter and failed to assign any reason, why the order of the Director did not call for any interference.

(7) IN these circumstances, in ordinary course we ought to have remanded the matter, after setting aside the impugned order. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and since the dispute is pending from 2000, we feel it convenient to decide this matter by ourselves.

(8) THE question is as to whether the receipt of Rs. 3,45,620/- on account of death benefit and Rs. 4,000/- as family pension per month stands in the way of granting employment on compassionate ground or not.

(9) THE Director has not set out any provision of law as to how on receipt of the aforesaid amount, the applicant is debarred from getting any appointment. The payment which had been received is an earned and assured amount which includes