Compassionate appointments must be timely; claims made after significant delays cannot be justified, as financial need may no longer exist.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, 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 State Level Committee in its meeting held on 02.08.2022, towards rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioner Late Gopika Rnjan Dey, while working as a Grade-IV employee in the establishment of the Block Development Officer, Katigorah Development Block, Cachar, had died-in-harness on 07.11.2010. The petitioner in pursuance of the death of his father in harness, submitted an application on 19.11.2010, before the competent authority praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The application as preferred by the petitioner came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 29.08.2015, for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, on consideration of the application, as submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground subject to availability of vacancy in the Office of the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department. The said recommendation as made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Level Committee came to be placed before the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 15.02.2019. The State Level Committee, on consideration of the case of the petitioner, proceeded to reject the same on the ground that there was no vacant post available for considering the case of the petitioner during the period, in question.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved, approached this Court by way of instituting a WP(c)3357/2020, assailing the decision as arrived at in the matter by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 15.02.2019. This Court, on noticing the fact that the recommendations as made by the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 29.08.2015, for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner was so made subject to availability of vacancy in the Office of the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, proceeded vide order, dated 28.09.2020, to interfere with the same and directed the District Level Committee to give a consideration in the next meeting of the District Level Committee, Cachar. It is seen that the case of the petitioner was thereafter, again placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.06.2021. The jurisdictional District Level Committee, however, did not proceed to consider the same on the ground that there was no representative from the establishment of the Block Development Officer, Katigorah Development Block, Cachar, present in the meeting. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was again placed before the jurisdictional District Level Committee in its meeting held on 07.10.2021. The jurisdictional District Level Committee on consideration of the case of the petitioner, directed to forward the application so submitted by the petitioner to the State Level Committee with the vacancy position for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground in- as-much as the District Level Committee had already recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in its meeting held