The court emphasized the importance of diligence and timely pursuit of rights, citing legal principles from various cases to support the decision to leave the consideration of the petitioner's application entirely to the discretion of the APDCL due to delay and laches.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who prays that the petitioner's application dtd. 26/5/2001 for compassionate appointment should be considered by the respondents.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's father died-in-harness on 2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's father died-inharness on 13/7/1995. The petitioner's mother thereafter made an application for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner's elder brother, Shri Abdus Sattar Choudhury on 7/11/1995. The petitioner herein filed an application for compassionate appointment on 26/5/2001.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's application should be considered by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), in terms of the meeting dtd. 5/7/2021 chaired by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam with senior Government officials, wherein it was decided that all pending applications for compassionate appointment prior to 2017 should be decided within 3 (three) months.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that this Court in its order dtd. 24/9/2021 passed in WP(C) No. 4838/2021, had directed the State Govt. to consider the case of an applicant, who had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 23/2/2003, in view of the death of her husband on 22/12/1994. This Court had given the said direction to the Elementary Education Department, in terms of the resolution taken in the meeting dtd. 5/7/2021 chaired by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam with senior Government officials. Thus, he prays that a similar direction should be passed by this Court. He also submits that as per the order dtd. 7/5/2018 passed in WA No. 117/2018, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the issue as to whether an applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment or not, can best be decided by the District Level Committee constituted especially for examining applications pertaining to compassionate appointment and as such, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the applicant's writ petition, seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's application.

5. Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are a company and they are not bound by the resolution made in the meeting minutes dtd. 5/7/2021 chaired by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam with senior Government officials. He submits that the APDCL is not a Government Department. He also submits that the petitioner has approached this Court, 21 years after filing his alleged application for compassionate appointment and as such, the same is hit by delay and laches. He further submits that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B., reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 819, the Apex Court has held that an applicant cannot be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, if such appointment is made after a period of 14/24 years, as the object of granting compassionate appointment was to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the bread earner. The Apex Court thus held that the object and purpose for which appointment on compassionate ground is provided is lost after a period of 14/24 years.

6. The counsel for the APDCL further submits that in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors ., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Apex Court had held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period of time. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. He accordingly prays that the writ petition should be dismissed due to delay and laches.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. This Court in its order dtd. 24/9/2021 passed in WP(C) No. 4838/2021 had directed the Elementary Education Department of the Gov