The petitioner's father Amal Kumar Das Gupta was appointed in the service of the Food Corporation of India as Picker in RDF with effect from 20.7.1959. He died on 12.1.1985.He wasonly 45 years of age. He left behind the petitioner, the eldest son, his wife Smti Jhama Das Gupta and his youngest son Shri Pradip Das Gupta. Due to sudden and untimely demise of Amal Das Gupta, his family. has been faced with a sudden crisis. The petitioner then was a minor. Therefore, his mother Smti Jharna Das Gupta in order to tide over the sudden crisis filed a representation before the respondent No. 4 with a prayer to appoint her as a Grade IV employee in the services of the Corporation. In her application, she narrated in details the hardship to which the family has been subjected to on sudden demise of her husband while in service. The respondent No. 4 forwarded a the said representation vide letter dated 14.11.1985 to the respondent No. 2 for appropriate action on the representation. The respondent No. 2 did not take any step to salvage the family. The petitioner had to discontinue his studies while in Class V in due to spiralling poverty. The petitioner's mother because of strain and stress fell ill and the petitioner was called upon to sustain the family. By this time the petitioner also attained majority. In the circumstances the petitioner filed a representation dated 29.9.1989 before the respondent No. 3 seeking appointment as Grade IV employee on compassionate ground. Certain documents including the income certificate were also annexed with the said representation. The respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 4.10.1989 forwarded the representation to the respondent No. 2 for necessary action. The respondent No. 2 by letter dated 27.12.1989 directed the respondent No. 3 to submit certain documents required c in this connection. A copy of the said letter written by the respondent No. 2 was also forwarded to the respondent No. 4 for verification and confirmation. On 27.12.1989, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the required documents to the respondent No. 2 for disposal of the representation. Although the petitioner furnished all necessary documents as required, the respondents failed to take ^ any follow up action to appoint the petitioner. On 27.12.1989, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the required documents to the respondent No. 2 for disposal of the representation. Although the petitioner furnished all necessary documents as required, the respondents failed to take ^ any follow up action to appoint the petitioner. The petitioner along with his mother approached the authorities both at Guwahati and Dibrugarh time and again and requested the respondent Nos 2 and 3 to look into the matter. Yet, nothing came out in spite of all efforts. The mother of the petitioner served another representation on 19.11.1993 through her counsel to the respondent Nos 2 and 3. In 1989 and 1991 the respondents appointed similarly situated persons namely, Smti Sandhya Mech and Smti Promoda Mech on compassionate ground although their husbands died in harness long after the death of Amal Das Gupta. 2. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition in para 5 admitted that the District Manager, Jorhat forwarded the representation of petitioner's mother to the regional office at Guwahati vide his letter dated 14.11.1985. It is further averred that the said representation did not reach the regional office and, therefore, no steps could be taken by them. In para 6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner submitted the application 4 years after the death of his father. According to the rules, an application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be made within a year from the date of death. The said application of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 After necessary verification, the said application in prescribed proforma was forwarded to the Zonal Manager at Guwahati vide letter dated 18.2.1991 with a request to convey the administrative approval for appointment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Zonal Manager is the competent authority to accord approval for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected on the ground that the application was submitted after a year of the death of the concerned employee. This was also communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 20.6.1991. 3. The petitioner in his rejoinder submitted that his application was made in continuation of the representation by his mother. The said application was rejected on the ground that the application was submitted after a year of the death of the concerned employee. This was also communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 20.6.1991. 3. The petitioner in his rejoinder submitted that his application was made in continuation of the representation by his mother. It was due to indifferent attitude of the respondents that the mother of the petitioner did not get the appointment and the petitioner having attained majority had to submit the application dated 29.9.89 as his mother by that time became sick. The petitioner has also reiterated his statement that two similarly situated persons were appointed disregarding the claim of the petitioner in total violation of the provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. From the pleadings reproduced above, it would appear that there is no dispute as to the fact that the mother of the petitioner immediate after the death of Amal Das Gupta filed an application for her appointment. As the respondents did not take any action in accordance with the circular, "the petitioner having attained majority had to file application for his appointment. The documents annexed along with the pleadings clearly support the above pleadings. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has clearly stated that the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent No. 2, the Senior Regional Manager, Guwahati for consideration of her case but the said letter did not reach the regional office. 5. The Corporation has laid down the policy of appointment of the dependents of deceased employees who die in harness. This policy embodied in the circular No. 29 of 1990 dated 20.8.1990 provides for appointment on compassionate ground. This circular is annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition which lays down the conditions under which such appointment can be made. For the purpose of this case, it will be relevant to put herein below the following provisions incorporated therein: “VI. Related Request for Compassionate Ground Appointments: The appointing authorities as mentioned above can also consider the request for compassionate appointment even when the death took place long ago, say five years or so. For the purpose of this case, it will be relevant to put herein below the following provisions incorporated therein: “VI. Related Request for Compassionate Ground Appointments: The appointing authorities as mentioned above can also consider the request for compassionate appointment even when the death took place long ago, say five years or so. While considering such belated applications/requests, it should be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is generally related to the need for immediate assistance to the family on the sudden death of the corporation employee leaving behind his/her family in harness. The very fact that the family has been able to manage, somehow, all these years should normally be adequate proof to show matter the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Thus, such cases should be examined in great detail and approval of the Managing Director in such cases should be obtained invariable by the authorities mentioned in para II above." 6. The above provisions casts a duty on the appointing authorities to consider the request for appointment on compassionate ground even when the death took place long ago. A limitation of 5 years has been put in liberally. However, the said provisions further clarify that the appointment must be related to the need for immediate assistance to the family on the sudden death of the employee. 7. It appears from the above that the respondents in a very perfunctory manner dealt with the application submitted by the wife of the deceased employee. It was forwarded to the Senior Regional Manager at Guwahati by the respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 4. ll.1985. Thereafter, he did not pursue the matter although, being a responsible officer of the Corporation he has a duty to ensure that an application duly filed under the rules framed by the Corporation is disposed of. It appears that the District Manager, Jorhat made no farther correspondence a with the respondent No. 2 to ascertain as to the fate of the application although the distressed wife with her two minor children was knocking at his door. This conduct on the part of the respondent No. 4 speaks of volume for itself. 8. The application submitted by the petitioner after attaining majority has been disposed of by the Senior Regional Manager totally ignoring the provisions of the circular quoted above. This conduct on the part of the respondent No. 4 speaks of volume for itself. 8. The application submitted by the petitioner after attaining majority has been disposed of by the Senior Regional Manager totally ignoring the provisions of the circular quoted above. Admittedly, the application was filed after 4 years of the death of the employee and the provisions quoted above permits consideration of such belated application. The respondent No. 2 in utter disregard to the provisions of the circular of the Corporation specially the provisions embodied in Para VI rejected the application on the ground of limitation. The father of the petitioner died on 12.1.1985 and the petitioner submitted the application on 29.9.1989 which is within 5 years from the date of death of the concerned employee. Instead of proceeding the application in order to ascertain the financial position of the family, the application was rejected on the technical ground of delay in violation of what is envisaged in the aforesaid rule. The action of the respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot, therefore, but be denounced and deprecated as arbitrary and violative of the rules framed by the Corporation. The respondents were duty bound under the aforesaid rules to consider the application of the mother and thereafter that the son in accordance with rules. It was a duty and not sympathy to be shown. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge the duties cast upon him. 9. The petitioner in his rejoinder reiterated that two persons similarly situated were appointed by the respondents on the death of their respective husbands in the year 1989 and 1991 although their case for consideration came up long after the application submitted by the wife and a few months after by the son of the deceased employee. This is indeed a very disturbing situation. If true, the fall out may be far reaching. But for want of documentary evidence the matter is left at the option of the respective parties to determine the future course of action. 10. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & others, (1994) 4 SCC138 in para 2 of the aforesaid judgment held as follows: 'The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 10. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & others, (1994) 4 SCC138 in para 2 of the aforesaid judgment held as follows: 'The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that is but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court and the provision relating to limitation required the respondents to cause an enquiry as to the present financial hardship of the family. Since the application of the petitioner was unjustly rejected, it would, therefore, be appropriate under the given circumstances to issue direction to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Para VI of the circular and the laws laid down by the Supreme Court. 11. The writ petition, subject to the observation made above, is allowed with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from today.