IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as the urgency for such appointments diminishes over time.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Ms. Leena Wajeeda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate; appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to the decision arrived at by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 05.06.2013, towards rejecting her case for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of non-availability of vacant post as well as on account of the fact that the application as submitted by the petitioner had lost its force on lapse of 2 years from the date, it was so submitted.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner Late Suresh Rabidas, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Assam, Silchar, had died-in-harness on 02.04.2005. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of her husband in harness, submitted an application on 27.07.2005, before the competent authority praying for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application as submitted by the petitioner, was placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 05.06.2013. It is projected by the petitioner that the rejection of her application was not communicated to her, promptly. However, on gaining knowledge of such rejection; the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

4. Ms. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has submitted that the petitioner having submitted her application for appointment on compassionate ground immediately after the death of her husband in harness; the delay so occasioning in considering her case for appointment on compassionate ground is attributable to the laches on the part of the respondent authorities and the petitioner is in no way involved in such delay.

5. In the above premises, Ms. Wajeeda, learned counsel, has submitted that the case of the petitioner not being considered in the manner required, the decision as arrived at in respect of the application so submitted by the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 05.06.2013, would call for an interference, with a further direction upon the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the jurisdictional District Level Committee for a fresh consideration.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State Respondents, has submitted that the case of the petitioner was first considered by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 12.07.2007, and the application of the petitioner was rejected on 12.07.2007, on account of non-availability of vacant post for accommodating the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee on 05.06.2013. However, the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 05.06.2013, proceeded to reject the case of the petitioner by holding that the application of the petitioner had lost its force in-as-much as two years had already elapsed since the same was so preferred by the petitioner.

7. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has further submitted that the husband of the petitioner having died-in-harness on 02.04.2005, with the lapse of time so occasioning; the immediacy for effecting appointment on compassionate ground, insofar as, the petitioner is concerned, has lost its force. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of W.B.