SAMARESH BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant case is the widow adopted daughter of the Government employee who was declared permanently incapacitated in 1991. Thereafter application was made for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Such application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Collector, Nadia. Thereafter as per the advice of the respondents to the petitioner to produce some order of the Court as to the factum of her adoption a suit was filed by the father of the present petitioner, the ex-Government employee Nripendra Kishore Chakraborty for a declaration that present writ petitioner is her adopted daughter and such declaration has been granted in the said civil suit. Such document was also forwarded to the appropriate authority. Even thereafter respondents failed and neglected to take any steps for appointing of the petitioner on such compassionate ground although years passed by. Ultimately the petitioner made a representation to the West Bengal Governor and representation was forwarded to the Secretary, Board of Revenue and now by an order dated September 8, 1995 signed by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue the petitioner has been informed that prayer of the writ petitioner cannot be entertained. Apart from the fact that such delay in taking decision of the respondents is indeed inexplicable as such delay defeats the very purpose of her appointment viz. immediately financial assistance to the dependants, the manner in which the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue is also surprising. The order is not at all a speaking order and does not show at all any application of mind on the part of the respondents even after such long lapse of time. ( 2 ) THE impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained simply on the ground that no person has been assigned for passing such order. ( 3 ) THE order dated September 8, 1995 being Annexure 'r' to the petition is therefore set aside and the writ application is allowed. ( 2 ) THE impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained simply on the ground that no person has been assigned for passing such order. ( 3 ) THE order dated September 8, 1995 being Annexure 'r' to the petition is therefore set aside and the writ application is allowed. ( 4 ) THE Respondent No. 2 being Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue is directed to consider the case of the petitioner de novo for appointment on compassionate ground positively within a month from the communication of this order and to dispose of the representation of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with law after giving reasons within the aforesaid period of one month. It is made clear that time limit so fixed is peremptory and mandatory. ( 5 ) IT is further made clear that since the father of the petitioner Nripendra Kishore Chakraborty was declared incapacitated and was prematurely retired as early in the year 1991, the said respondent in the matter of taking such decision shall not take into consideration the modification which has been made by Memo. No. 200/60- EPM/epm/2e-31/1993 dated August 3, 1993 of the previous circular of the same department dated June 19, 1978 and October 17, 1977. ( 6 ) THE decision of the said Respondent No. 2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from taking such decision. The application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. The learned Advocates of the parties shall communicate the order passed to-day to the Respondent No. 2 and he shall act on the same.