JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The father of the petitioner Ganga Bahadur Chetry who was working as an AB Constable in the Assam Police in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur died in harness on 28.12.2010 and on his death, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 21.01.2011. However, the said application remained unattended. The petitioner after attaining the majority in the year 2018 made an application for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2018. The said application was considered by the DLC of Lakhimpur district in its meeting of 14.02.2019 and upon evaluating the existence of vacancy in Grade-III for compassionate appointment, recommended the petitioner.

3. When the recommendation was placed before the SLC in its meeting of 10.02.2022, it stood rejected by giving the reason ‘late submission of application’. The reason given by the learned counsel for the SLC for the rejection on late submission of application is that the deceased died on 28.12.2010 whereas the application was made on 10.12.2018.

4. Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents seeks to oppose this writ petition by referring to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.12.2022 in WA No. 325/2021 wherein a conclusion was arrived at that if compassionate appointment is made after a period of ten years, the same shall be de hors the very objects of principles of die-in-harness scheme.

5. The Division Bench while arriving at its conclusion also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & ors. vs. Anusree K.B. in Civil Appeal No. 6958/2022 wherein by referring to various laws laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of compassionate appointment, particularly, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, in paragraph 9 thereof, had held that the person concerned therein shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father who died in the year 1995 and the application was made after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee.

6. The facts of the present case are at a variance to the extent that the father of the petitioner died on 28.12.2010; on 21.01.2011, the mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment which remained unattended at a time when the petitioner was a minor and after attaining majority, the petitioner made his application on 10.12.2018. The facts of the present case appears to more similar to that of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2016) 9 SCC 195 wherein in paragraph 1 thereof, it was taken note that after the death of an employee on 12.09.1991, the mother of the applicant made an application for compassionate appointment on 02.04.1993 which was rejected for the reason that it was not in a prescribed format. Thereupon, the applicant who was aged 13 years 3 months 23 days at the time of the death, made an application for compassionate appointment, after attaining the majority after a period of six years.

7. In the aforesaid circumstance, in paragraph 5 of the judgment in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra), the Supreme Court held as extracted:

“5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years’ old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific p