JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Heard Mrs. K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. In challenge is the Office Order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Assam (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the Petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment in terms of the Government policy to that effect as embodied in the Office Memorandum No. ABP. 357/80/137 dated 09.09.1983. 3. Briefly stated the Petitioner's pleaded case, is that following the demise of his father Late Ramashis Rai who had been serving as Night Chowkidar at the Central Training Institute Building under the Directorate of Accounts, Assam, on 10.10.2000 the Petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned authority of the said establishment for appointment on compassionate ground as per the above policy. As his request remained unattended, without any rhyme or reason, he approached this Court with WP (C) No. 555 of 2001, which was disposed of on 04.04.2003 with a directing to the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Assam to take all necessary steps to consider his case therefore and to inform him of the action taken. A time frame of three months was provided for that purpose. According to the Petitioner, inspite of the above order, the concerned authorities did not take steps, for which he approached this Court with a petition for Contempt registered as Cont. Case No. 693 of 2006. 4. In the affidavit that was filed by the Respondent therein, it was, inter alia, disclosed that the Petitioner, inspite of the order of this Court had applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format only on 20.09.2006 and the same was duly processed thereafter and finally vide order dated 12.02.2007, the request was rejected on the grounds enumerated therein. The answering Respondent, in particular asserted that the Petitioner, Raja Rai had not been declared by his deceased father to be his dependent son while he was in service. 5. Mrs. Yadav, has emphatically urged that out of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased which includes with him three sons, one of his brothers had pre-deceased his father and that the other is living separately from the family. She has pleaded that the Petitioner's mother is also dead, and that the source of pension consequentially has dried up. Mrs. Yadav, has emphatically urged that out of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased which includes with him three sons, one of his brothers had pre-deceased his father and that the other is living separately from the family. She has pleaded that the Petitioner's mother is also dead, and that the source of pension consequentially has dried up. On instructions she has submitted that the Petitioner who is alias Rajnarayan Rai is the son on whom the family with the remaining members thereof are presently dependent. 6. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has drawn this Court attention, inter alia to a School Certificate endorsing that the Petitioner Raja Rai is the son of Late Ramashish Rai. While contending that his brother Sri Shiv Chandra Rai employed in the Forest Department of the State is living separately from his family and has recused himself from all responsibilities thereof, Mrs. Yadav has urged, that in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the Petitioner's claim therefore in the above facts and circumstances is valid, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. 7. Mr. Gogoi has urged that as compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, considering the factors taken note of by the Respondent No. 2, the impugned order is unassailable and therefore the petition is liable to be rejected. 8. The materials available on record do not, as such demonstrate is unequivocal terms that at or before the passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner had submitted any document before the concerned authority to brief him that he is also known as Rajnarayan Rai. The supporting documents pertaining to the said claim have been furnished in the instant proceeding. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that it was not possible to do so earlier as he (Petitioner) was unaware of the impugned order, which for the first time was disclosed in the affidavit filed in the aforementioned contempt case. Though, it has not been denied before this Court that the pensionary benefits due to the deceased, have since been released, having regard to the guidelines for compassionate appointment, as is contained in the Office Memorandum No. ABR. 357/80/137 receipt thereof, per se does not disqualify a member of the family of the deceased for compassionate appointment thereunder. Though, it has not been denied before this Court that the pensionary benefits due to the deceased, have since been released, having regard to the guidelines for compassionate appointment, as is contained in the Office Memorandum No. ABR. 357/80/137 receipt thereof, per se does not disqualify a member of the family of the deceased for compassionate appointment thereunder. Existing appointment of any other family member of the deceased (Government servant) in service also does not appear to be an absolute impediment for the same purpose for others in deserving cases, if on a consideration of the earnings and liabilities of such earning member it is considered permissible. 9. A bare reading of the impugned order does not proclaim that the above two aspects had been taken note of by the Respondent No. 2 before passing the same. While no fault can be attached to the conclusion with regard to the identity of the Petitioner in absence of adequate materials before him, the rejection of his request on the ground that his brother Shiv Narayan Rai is already in service, without examining as to whether, inspite thereof, having regard to his earnings and liabilities, the request for compassionate appointment can still be entertained does not commend to this Court for acceptance. 10. True it is, that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is contingent on several factors as have been laid-down in the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.83 but the process, needless to say, has to be essentially guided by the prescriptions enumerated in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam and other reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. The consideration has to be inconformity therewith, which in view of the above omissions appears not to have been done. 11. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is left at liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Assam furnishing all necessary particulars with regard to his identity as well as justifications in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment for a fresh consideration therefore. If such a representation is filed, the aforementioned authority would process the same in terms of the said policy, as well as the guidelines laid-down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and take an appropriate decision. If such a representation is filed, the aforementioned authority would process the same in terms of the said policy, as well as the guidelines laid-down by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra) and take an appropriate decision. While issuing this direction, this Court is aware of the time frame indicated in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra)for consideration of pending applications for compassionate appointment which finds reflection, as well in the notification No. ABP. 357/80/Vol-I/303 dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure - Q of the writ petition). 12. It is made clear that the directions issued have been necessitated by the facts and circumstances of the case and would not be construed in future to be a precedent. As the Petitioner waits in expectation for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, the Respondent authorities would act with due expedition once a representation by him as above, is submitted. With the above observations and directions the petition stands disposed. No costs.