Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, and it cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

The issue raised in this petition is towards a claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The facts projected in this petition is that the husband of the petitioner, late Ranjan Kr. Das, was working as a Grade-IV employee in the Public Works Department (PWD) at Tezpur who had died in harness on 31.12.2006.

3. The petitioner who claims to be eligible and qualified had accordingly applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 04.04.2007. As the said application was not duly considered, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/7473/2013. In the said case, the apprehension of the petitioner was that the lack of consideration might have been on the ground that the husband was working on work charge basis and not on a regular employee. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 wherein it has been held that for the purposes of consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, no distinction should be carved out between a regular employee and a work charge employee as such employee also gets the GPF and another benefits. In spite of the said judgment, no action was taken and accordingly, the present writ petition has been instituted.

4. I have heard Shri S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the PWD is represented by Shri R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel.

5. Shri Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on persistent approach by the petitioner, a communication was issued to her on 06.07.2019 whereby the ground of rejection was stated that the deceased - Government Servant was on work charge basis. It is submitted that the aforesaid ground was already taken care of by this Court while disposing of the earlier WP(C)/7473/2013 vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2014. He accordingly submits that necessary directions be issued for a fair consideration and appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

6. Per contra, Shri Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel of the Department, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 10.01.2022 has submitted that the case of the petitioner was indeed considered by the State Level Committee on 19.06.2018. Upon such consideration, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds of lack of vacancy within the 5% quota as well as the delay in such consideration. In this connection, the averments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 10.01.2022 have been pressed into service.

7. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the writ petition has been filed only in the year 2021 and the death of the Government Servant was in the year 2006. Therefore, any direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner at this stage would not be in consonance with the objective of the Scheme. Shri Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 1467.

8. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

9. The stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed on 10.01.2022 is that the consideration of the petitioner by the SLC was indeed done on 19.06.2018 and on the grounds of lack of vacancies within the 5% quota and the period which has elapsed in the meantime were taken as grounds for the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.

10. Though apparently, the said grounds which have been placed on record by way of an affidavit does not appear to be consistent with the reply dated 06.07.2019, the aspect of the long intervening period of about 2 decades from the date of death cannot be ignored or overlooked. The first writ petition was disposed of in March, 2014 and the present writ petition itself has been filed on 08.04.2021.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has laid down as follows :

“7.2. On consid