Compassionate appointment claims must be filed promptly; delays undermine the grounds for consideration, rendering such cases stale.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Das, 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 21.08.2019, towards rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of late submission of the application by the petitioner, herein.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late Abhinash Ch. Das, while working as an Office Peon in the establishment of Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Assam, Silchar, had died-in-harness on 20.10.2004. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of his father in harness, submitted an application on 25.01.2005, before the competent authority praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner not being placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, he approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4075/2015. In the said writ petition, the respondent authorities had submitted before this Court that the case of the petitioner, herein, was not recommended by the jurisdictional District Level Committee on account of late submission of such application by the petitioner, herein. In view of the said position and the decision as rendered in the matter by the jurisdictional District Level Committee being brought on record; the petitioner proceeded to withdraw the said writ petition. However, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application assailing the decision of the jurisdictional District Level Committee.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has submitted that the rejection of the application so submitted by the petitioner, by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 21.08.2019, is clearly not sustainable and accordingly, the case of the petitioner would require a fresh consideration. Accordingly, it is submitted that the decision of the jurisdictional District Level Committee insofar as it pertains to the case of the petitioner, herein, be interfered with a further direction to the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the jurisdictional District Level Committee for a fresh consideration.

6. In the above premises, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the case of the petitioner not being granted a fair and due consideration by the jurisdictional District Level Committee; 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 04.11.2020, 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 proper and just consideration.

7. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State Respondents, has submitted that the case of the petitioner was actually considered by the jurisdictional District Level