JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions and Ms. M.M. Kataki, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities for consideration of their case for appointment on compassionate grounds upon the death of their respective fathers who died in harness. 3. This Court finds it pertinent to briefly note down the facts in each case. WP(C) No.2180/2023: 4. The Petitioner herein as on date is about 42 years old. His father who was serving as a Peon, Grade-IV in the Office of the District Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer, Bongaigaon expired on 11.07.2013 leaving behind the Petitioner, his mother, one younger brother and three sisters. It is stated at Paragraph No.6 of the writ petition that the Petitioner submitted an application in the year 2013 itself in the prescribed format praying for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said application is not enclosed. It is also claimed by the Petitioner that the District Level Committee had recommended the case of the Petitioner. However, the State Level Committee on 30.12.2015 rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that there was no vacancy. It is the further case of the Petitioner that at that time, there were 27 numbers of vacancies in Grade-IV and the State Level Committee had recommended only 26 persons and one vacancy remained wherein the Petitioner could have been accommodated. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2559/2016. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 10.12.2018 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the State Level Committee for reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the said order. The petitioner's case thereupon was considered in the State Level Committee meeting held on 13.09.2022 along with other candidates. But the Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that his father had less than three years of service which was inconsistent with Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and in that regard a Speaking Order was passed on 09.01.2023. 5. But the Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that his father had less than three years of service which was inconsistent with Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 and in that regard a Speaking Order was passed on 09.01.2023. 5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that this Court vide a judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 in a bunch of writ petitions held that Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner had therefore approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground due to the expiry of his father Late Khargeswar Ray. It is pertinent to mention that the Speaking Order dated 09.01.2023 however has not been put to challenge. WPC No.2194/2023: 6. The Petitioner herein as on date is 38 years old. His father who was working as Veterinary Field Assistant (VFA) in the IDCP Centre at Kokrajhar BTC expired on 20.03.2013 leaving behind the Petitioner, his mother and one younger sister. The Petitioner submitted an application on 20.05.2013 and though the District Level Committee had recommended the case of the Petitioner on 13.03.2015 but the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 30.12.2015 had rejected the case of the Petitioner on account of non- availability of vacancy. The Petitioner being aggrieved had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No.5589/2020 wherein this Court vide an order dated 08.02.2022 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the State Level Committee and the Department to reconsider the case of the Petitioner under Clause-15 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. 7. The Petitioner’s case was again considered in the State Level Committee meeting held on 13.09.2022 but his candidature was rejected in view of Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. To that effect, a Speaking Order was passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 09.01.2023. The Petitioner therefore has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner and appoint him on compassionate grounds in view of the fact that Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was held to be unconstitutional by this Court in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No.1646/2021 and Others. 8. 8. It is relevant to take note of that this Court had issued notice in the year 2023 in both the writ petitions. The Respondents however have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. Under such circumstances, the question therefore arises in the backdrop of the above facts as to whether this Court should direct the Respondents to consider the cases of the Petitioners for appointment on the basis of compassionate grounds. 9. It is pertinent to take note of that at the time when the father of both the Petitioners have expired, the Office Memorandum which was holding the field have not been enclosed to the writ petitions. Be that as it may, the Petitioners have claimed appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015. It is pertinent to take note of that vide the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the Government of Assam had adopted a policy to make appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependent family member of a Government servant who was appointed on regular basis and who died in harness or became incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty. The said Office Memorandum stipulated various terms and conditions. The edifice on which the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 was based upon certain principles as incorporated in the Office Memorandum itself. Principle No.10 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is of relevance inasmuch as, it stipulates that if the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and cannot be considered due to want of vacancies for a period of 2 (two) years from the date of making of such applications, the said applications would require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force. 10. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the rationale behind the policy of compassionate appointment i.e. to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the sole bread earner in the family. Under such circumstances, the claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be delayed as it is an emergent provision to redeem the family in distress. The consistent approach of the Courts in respect to compassionate appointment is that appointment on compassionate basis cannot be deemed to be a source of recruitment but only a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The consistent approach of the Courts in respect to compassionate appointment is that appointment on compassionate basis cannot be deemed to be a source of recruitment but only a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. As far back as in the year 1997, the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Hakim Singh , (1997) 8 SCC 85 cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the compassionate appointment is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that befalls upon the dependents on account of untimely demise of the sole earning member. It was also observed that it would not be justified in directing the appointment for claimants on compassionate grounds after a long passage of time since death. Such a direction would tantamount to treating the claim of compassionate appointment as matter of inheritance based on line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. 11. In recent times, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others , (2025) 5 SCC 712 , after analyzing the various judgments culled out the certain principles governing compassionate appointments. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein under: “ 32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: 32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.” 12. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that in the above quoted paragraphs, the Supreme Court also emphasized that where a long lapse of time had occurred since the death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh upon the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out or not. It is also relevant to observe that the right to be appointed on compassionate grounds is not a vested right and even in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on behalf of the applicant claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities deciding such claim, the immediacy being diluted and lost, there cannot be a direction for consideration for compassionate appointment. 13. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, it would show that the fathers of both the Petitioners expired in the year 2013 and more than 12 years have passed by as on date. The very basis of the policy for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds which is providing succor to the dependents of the deceased employee for avoiding destitution and to get over the sudden financial crisis is no longer available in the cases of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions. 14. Accordingly, this Court therefore does not find any merit in both the writ petitions for which both the writ petitions stands dismissed. No costs.