JUDGMENT P.K. Samanta, J.: Writ petitions are being regularly filed in this court for directions upon the concerned authorities to provide an employment to a near relation of a deceased Gram Panchayat Employee who died-in-harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. This writ petition is one of such petitions. 2. I had the occasion to deal with a series of similar writ petitions earlier which I disposed of with directions to the concerned authorities to consider each and every case for appointment on compassionate ground in the die-in-harness category in the manner stated therein and as are provided in the West Bengal Panchayat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Gram Panchayat Karmee) Rules, 1995. 3. Thereafter, similar writ petitions were disposed of by another Learned Judge of this court whereby the manner prescribed by my earlier judgment for consideration of cases for appointment on compassionate ground was though maintained but it held that in view of Notification No. 24611/III/Panch/4c-2/86 (Pt.1) dated 8th September, 1988 the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground conferred by notification No. 19362/III/Panch/4c2-86 (Pt.1) dated 25th July, 1989 would be available to the near relation of a deceased employee who had died after 8th September, 1988. 4. Against said judgment of the learned Judge an appeal being MAT No. 3121 of 1997 was preferred before the Division Bench but the same was dismissed. 5. In this background on behalf of the respondent authorities Mr. Soumitra Dasgupta and Mrs. Bharati Mutsuddi learned advocates separately and seriously contended that writ petitions should not be entertained and the court will not pass orders like earlier occasions directing the respondent authorities to consider the applications of the near relations of the deceased employees for appointments on compassionate ground in die-in-harness category where writ petitions are filed at a belated stage. In support of such contention reliance was heavily placed on their behalf in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC (2nd) Suppl. 3887 (Haryana State Electricity Board & Anrs. vs. Hakim Singh). It was further contended that the time limit prescribed in residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act should be applied in writ petition of like nature. 6. 3887 (Haryana State Electricity Board & Anrs. vs. Hakim Singh). It was further contended that the time limit prescribed in residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act should be applied in writ petition of like nature. 6. In consideration of the above contentions of the Learned advocates for the respondent it must be stated that so far as the obligation of the authority concerned to appoint, in principle, on compassionate ground can not be doubted any more. Because the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1976 (Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India) and AIR 1991 SC 469 (Phoolwali vs. Union of India) unequivocally held that the purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family and such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board (Supra) cited on behalf of the respondents is no exception. In paragraph 8 of the said report it has been observed as follows :- “The rule of appointment to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependends in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread winner. This court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.” 7. However, in view of the aforesaid observations it emerges that while it is improper on the part of the authority to keep a case for appointment on compassionate ground pending for years because such appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress but at the same time such an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Therefore, in a case of employment on compassionate ground it is though absolutely necessary to judge a case from the stand point of view that the applicant for such employment did not make any delay but at the same time the authorities should not frustrate a rightful claim of appointment by not considering the application at all even when it was made within a reasonable period and thereby forcing one who is already in distress condition to the door of court and then by taking plea that he should have approached the court earlier. 8. In these state of things pertinent questions fall for consideration are (a) what is the reasonable time within which a near relation of a deceased employee should make an application for appointment on compassionate ground; (b) what should be the period within which one should seek his remedy in a writ court if his application is not considered by the authority concerned. Such consideration is necessary to provide a guideline in this regard to the bona fide applicants who may therefore pursue their right lawfully. Answers to these questions are further warranted as large number of writ petitions are filed regularly in this court even in respect of deaths occurred a decade back. 9. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board (supra) the circulars issued by the Board in this regard provided that one member of the family of the deceased employee could be considered for employment in the service of the Board as goodwill gesture, provided request for such employment is made within one year of the death of the employee. But in the present case none of the notification and/or circulars issued in this behalf indicate in any way the time limit within which one should make an application for such employment. 10. In rural Bengal general public awareness of legal rights cannot be said to be high. It is common knowledge that such awareness has not developed to a level as it should have been. It is also within common knowledge that Government circulars and notifications are not regularly published and/or displayed in public places. People in villages having very little knowledge about the contents of such circulars and notifications depend upon others. It is common knowledge that such awareness has not developed to a level as it should have been. It is also within common knowledge that Government circulars and notifications are not regularly published and/or displayed in public places. People in villages having very little knowledge about the contents of such circulars and notifications depend upon others. In such situations it cannot be expected that an application for appointment on compassionate ground would be made by a near relation of a deceased employee with such promptitude as it should be. Keeping in mind, the factors as above, the reasonable period for making such an application for employment on compassionate ground by a near relation of a deceased employee will be a year or so from the date of death of the employee concerned. Therefore, I hold that if such application for employment is made within the period as above the concerned authorities will be under obligation to consider and dispose of the same immediately without keeping the same pending for years together. 11. In a situation, inspite of making such an application for employment within the reasonable time as above where the authorities concerned keep the same pending for years, a pertinent question thus, arises in the context, is as to what can be regarded as a reasonable period within which an aggrieved person should approach the High Court. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board (supra) an application for such employment was made by the widow of the deceased employee in favour of her son after 14 years of death of her husband when the said son attained majority. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the High Court went wrong in giving direction to the Board to consider the claim. 12. In this regard reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 (State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai). At Paragraph 21 of the said report it was observed as follows :- “the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. It appears to us however, that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in the Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which the delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. It appears to us however, that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in the Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which the delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. This court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a Civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than the period it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable.” 13. In AIR 1972 SC 2060 (Kamini Kumar Das Chowdhury vs. State of W.Bengal & Ors.) it was held that the rule that delay defeats the rights of a party to seek redress by means of prerogative writ under Article 226 cannot be held to be abrogated merely because if the claim had been brought in a Civil Court, the period of limitation would not have expired. Relief may be refused on the ground of acquiescence and presumed abandonment of the right to complain inferred from inordinate delay. 14. In Asok Kumar vs. Collector AIR 1980 SC 112 , delay of even about two months was held to be debarring factor in challenging the calling of elections on the ground of not having given time required by law to file claim and objection to the electoral rolls. In the case of Hari Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1020 , the writ petition filed in July 1982 questioning the notification issued in January, 1980 after a delay of nearly two and half years was dismissed on the ground of laches even when the appellants had pleaded that they did not know anything about the notifications which had been published in the Gazette. But again in the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 357 (R.M. Ramulal vs. State of H.P. & Ors) the petition was however not regarded as stale though the seniority list of 1971 was challenged in 1982 on the ground that the cause of action for challenging the seniority list arose after representation of some incumbents had been allowed in 1982. In the case of State of H.P. vs. Nandalal reported in AIR 1987 SC 251 , it was held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated therein that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. If the writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may, have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice to third party. Thus in substance it was held that though provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply and there cannot be any hard and fast rule in this regard but each case has to be judged on its own facts and merits. 15. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that on being asked the learned advocates for the respondent/authorities failed to cite any instance in which the concerned respondent/authorities dealt with any application for appointment on compassionate ground independently and without being directed by a writ court even when such an application was made within a reasonable period of time after the death of the employee in harness. Though it is settled principle of law that this court will exercise' its extraordinary writ jurisdiction provided one approaches the court without any lapses and negligences on his part but at the same time it is not out of place to record that in a situation like the present one the respondent/authorities do not move unless it is made to move by a direction of this writ court. The rule that the court may not enquire into belated claim is not and cannot be said to be inviolable rule, in prevailing where general apathy of the respondent/authorities is apparent. The rule that the court may not enquire into belated claim is not and cannot be said to be inviolable rule, in prevailing where general apathy of the respondent/authorities is apparent. Considering all these aspects of the matter and in the absence of any Statutory rule in this regard, a period of three years or so from the date of making of an application for employment, the period prescribed in the residuary Article -137 of the Limitation Act should be taken as a rough measure to provide guideline for judging delay in filing writ petition in this court. 16. Thus in all in a case where the application for employment on compassionate ground was made within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee then the respondent/authorities shall stand directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the manner prescribed hereunder :- (I) The petition already filed by the petitioner in this behalf shall be placed by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat before the concerned Block Level Selection Committee constituted under Rule 7 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Gram Panchayat Karmee) Rules 1995 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order to him. (II) The concerned Block Level Selection Committee upon receipt of the same will consider and dispose of the same by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or any other person or persons who may claim for such appointment being the heir and/or near relation of the deceased employee and also by taking into consideration any other Government Circulars. Notifications/Orders in this regard including the recommendation for such appointment in favour of the petitioner, if any, already made by the Gram Panchayat concerned in the meantime. The concerned Block Level Selection Committee will also decide the rival claims if there be any in between the heirs of the deceased employee including the question whether the applicant falls in the category of son/daughter/near relation of the deceased Panchayat employee and will select one amongst them in accordance with law. The resolution and/or the decision taken by the concerned Block Level Selection Committee shall be reduced in writing with reasons and a copy of which shall be supplied to the writ petitioner forthwith. The resolution and/or the decision taken by the concerned Block Level Selection Committee shall be reduced in writing with reasons and a copy of which shall be supplied to the writ petitioner forthwith. Such determination must be made by the concerned Block Level Selection Committee within a period of two months from the date of placement of the application of the petitioner as aforesaid by the Pradhan to the said Selection Committee. It is made clear that for the purpose of recommendation for such appointment by the said Block Level Selection Committee, the procedure as prescribed, in Rule 7(1) only of the said Rules will be followed. (III) Upon consideration as aforesaid if the concerned Block Level Selection Committee recommends appointment of the petitioner then the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned will issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within fifteen days of such recommendation provided a vacant post is available in the concerned Gram Panchayat. (IV) In the event, such a post of Gram Panchayat Karmee is not available in the concerned Gram Panchayat then the Executive Officer of the concerned Panchayat Samity will be informed by the concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan of the aforesaid recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as such and the said Executive Officer shall be competent to issue the order of absorption of the writ petitioner in an available post in any other Gram Panchayat within the jurisdiction of that Panchayat Samity. If such a post of Gram Panchayat Karmee is not available in any Gram Panchayat within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samity, then the Executive Officer of the Zilla Parish ad shall be informed accordingly who will be competent to issue the order of such absorption in any available post of the Gram Panchayat Karmee in any Gram Panchayat within the District. It is desirable that all these authorities will act without causing unnecessary delay. 17. In this particular writ petition, it has been stated that an application for employment on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee on 07.11.91 was made. Even assuming that such an application was made within a period of one year i.e. by 07.11.92 but then this writ petition having been filed long after the expiry of the period of three years, this writ petition does not merit any consideration and hence the same is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.