Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel. 2. Mr. Dasgupta has produced a copy of the order dated 1.12.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District, Diphu, by which the petitioner has been appointed as Chowkidar (Grade-IV) as per the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Members of Persons killed by the Extremist/Terrorists) rules, 1992. She has been so appointed in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamren under the Amalgamated Establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District against a vacant post in the Pay Band-1 (Rs.4560 – Rs.15000) - Grade Pay - Rs.1500/- PM and other allowances admissible as per rule. 3. This writ petition was filed in the year 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the respondents to consider the case for appointment of the petitioner under the said Rules. 4. This is the third writ petition the petitioner has filed for consideration of her case under the said Rules. She had earlier filed the first writ petition being WP(C) No.2074/2006, which was disposed of by order dated 12.4.2006 providing consideration of her case within 60 days. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No.5789/2006, which was also disposed of by order dated 26.3.2007 directing the respondents to re-open the case of the petitioner for due consideration of her entitlement for appointment in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules of 1992. The consideration was to be made within 3 (three) months. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam passed the order dated 10.8.2007 directing the authorities to re-open the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. However, on that occasion also, nothing was done forcing the petitioner to file the instant writ petition. 6. By order dated 20.7.2011, this Court directed the Respondent No.3 to place on record the details of consideration of the case of the petitioner all throughout in terms of the relevant scheme. No such instructions could be furnished. However, an affidavit was filed by one Sri Udayan Hazarika, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department making some vague and indefinite statements. This Court in its order dated 8.9.2011, recorded its dissatisfaction on the conduct of the respondents in the matter. 7. No such instructions could be furnished. However, an affidavit was filed by one Sri Udayan Hazarika, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department making some vague and indefinite statements. This Court in its order dated 8.9.2011, recorded its dissatisfaction on the conduct of the respondents in the matter. 7. The matter was again taken up on 22.11.2011. Noticing the fact that the respondents did not produce the required records, direction was issued to make the position clear on or before 28.11.2011. There has been delay of 15 years towards consideration of the case of the petitioner. 8. It is pursuant to the aforesaid development only, the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District has issued the aforesaid order dated 1.12.2011 favouring appointment to the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner has been considered after long 15 years of expiry of her brother at the hands of the militants. 9. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District, Diphu and Sri Udayan Hazarika, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department have filed their individual affidavits showing the stages of consideration of the case of the petitioner. Although the explanation furnished is not satisfactory, but in view of the fact that eventually the case of the petitioner has been considered, the said explanation is accepted with a note of caution to the authorities in the Personnel Department, Government of Assam and the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council to be careful in future in such matters. They cannot sit over such sensitive matters indefinitely. Needless to say that such matters are required to be given immediate and meaningful consideration, as the purpose for which the scheme for appointment has been formulated, gets frustrated with the efflux of time. 10. Writ petition is disposed of. Considering the fact that the petitioner had to approach this Court on three occasions for consideration of her case for appointment under the particular scheme, I am of the considered opinion that she is entitled to get at least cost of the proceeding, which is quantified at Rs.15,000/- to be born by the Karbi Anglong District Autonomous Council and the Government of Assam in the Personnel Department in equal shares. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within two months and in turn, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the same. 11. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within two months and in turn, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the same. 11. Writ petition is disposed of. _____________