JUDGMENT Tapash Mookherjee, J. 1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 624 of 2005. 2. The facts leading to the application, in short, are as follows:- 3. The father of the petitioner, Late Prabir Chandra Roy, was working as a Head Assistant in the office of the Block Medical Officer of Health, Reapara Rural Hospital, Nandigram-II in the District of Purba Midnapur and he died-in-harness on 13.08.2000 after rendering service for more than 38 years leaving behind his widow, two sons including the petitioner, two married daughters and one unmarried daughter. Petitioner’s mother applied for employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. An enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer concerned to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. After enquiry, the B. D. O. submitted a report to the sub-divisional officer concerned. 4. District Magistrate, Purba Midnapur, asked the B. D. O. to take necessary decisions of his own regarding the matter in terms of the G. O. No. 7 (127) E.M.P dated 13.11.1999 of the Labour Department. But no action had been taken by the B. D. O. in the matter. Hence, the petitioner filed an Original Application being O. A. No. 767 of 2002 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal by its order dated 04.09.2003 directed the Director of Health Services, West Bengal, the Respondent No. 2 in this application, to treat the application before the Tribunal as a representation of the petitioner and to take appropriate decision on it. The aforesaid authority did not comply with that order due to which a contempt application being C. C. P. No. 71 of 2004 had been filed by the petitioner. 6. The Director of Health Services, West Bengal, passed an order on 25.02.2005 rejecting thereby the application of the petitioner. Against such order of rejection, the petitioner again filed an Original Application No. 642 of 2005 before the Administrative Tribunal. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal, by an order dated 20.09.2010. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal, by an order dated 20.09.2010. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the terminal benefits received by the petitioner’s family on the death of the petitioner’s father, added by the income from the landed property of the petitioner’s family and added further with the monthly family pension of the petitioner’s mother, were adequate for the support of the petitioner’s family and secondly, that since the petitioner’s family could survive for 10 years without any external assistance, the petitioner’s claim for immediate assistance by an employment on compassionate ground was not justified. 8. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the petitioner argued that the learned Tribunal committed gross errors by considering the entire terminal benefits received by the petitioner’s family as the fund enjoyable exclusively by the dependents of the deceased, because, the deceased left two married daughters who had also due shares in it. Mr. Sanyal, further argued that the fund received on account of G. P. F. and Leave Encashment were the deceased’s own savings and the deceased had contributed in General Insurance Scheme also. So, neither the principal amount nor the interest yielding from those funds should be considered as the terminal benefits received by the deceased’s family from the employer. He further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner after his father’s death is not a legal disqualification for any employment on compassionate ground. Mr. Sanyal added further that the delay in the processing of the petitioner’s application was not due to any cause attributable to the petitioner. The substance of the contention of Mr. Sanyal was that the family fell into an acute financial crisis when the petitioner’s father suddenly died-in-harness and hence the petitioner was entitled to an employment on compassionate ground in terms of the G. O. No. 7 (127) E. M. P. dated 13.11.1999. 9. Mr. Sanyal referred to the following decisions:- 10. The State of West Bengal & Ors.- Vs.- Smt. Bina Debnath & Ors. And West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors.- Vs.- Smt. Bina Debnath & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) CLJ (Cal). 9. Mr. Sanyal referred to the following decisions:- 10. The State of West Bengal & Ors.- Vs.- Smt. Bina Debnath & Ors. And West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors.- Vs.- Smt. Bina Debnath & Ors., reported in 2009 (2) CLJ (Cal). In the said judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court it has been held that the rule applicable in the case of an employment on compassionate ground is the rule prevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee. It has been further held in the decision that the applicant’s prayer for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of delay as the delay has resulted due to the laches on the part of the State to take any prompt decision in the matter. In another case reported in 2012 (3) CLJ 141 Sri Subimal Sarkar -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors. a Division Bench of this court in which one of us (Mhatre J.) was a member, it has been held that “The applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied by the authorities by keeping the application pending for an unreasonably long period of time, only in order to frustrate the purpose of the application. The respondents cannot be heard to say, as has been argued in this case, that due to the passage of time the necessity for compassionate appointment has blown over.” 11. In an unreported case W.P.S.T. 408 of 2010 Manik Majhi -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors. decided on 19.03.2014, we have held that after inaction for a long period, the State cannot be permitted to plead that since the family of the deceased has survived for a long period without any employment on compassionate ground, the deceased’s family does not require any compassionate employment for survival at a belated stage. 12. On the contrary, Ms. Bhattacharrya, appearing for the State, argued that employment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and it is considered only when the family of a Government employee dying-in-harness suddenly faces serious financial crisis due to the sudden fall of income because of the death of the employee. She further argued that the petitioner’s father enjoying a long tenure of service was entitled to full pension and as such the petitioner’s mother received a good amount, i.e., Rs. She further argued that the petitioner’s father enjoying a long tenure of service was entitled to full pension and as such the petitioner’s mother received a good amount, i.e., Rs. 2,438.00 (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty eight only) as full monthly family pension. She further argued that the petitioner’s family received a sum of Rs. 4,11,145.00 (rupees four lakh eleven thousand one hundred forty five only) in total as terminal benefits. The interest arising out of it was also a good amount and that the petitioner’s family had an earning of Rs. 600.00 (rupees six hundred only) per month from their landed properties. So, all those incomes added and considered together, were sufficient for the maintenance of the deceased’s family. Another contention of Ms. Bhattacharrya was that the petitioner married after the death of his father and as such it should be assumed that the petitioner had the financial capacity to maintain one more member in the family. Raising the aforesaid points, Ms. Bhattacharrya argued that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground. 13. Ms. Bhattacharrya has cited the following decisions in support of her contention (2011) 4 SCC 209 , Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs.- Union of India And Others, (2011) 13 SCC 42 , Local Administration Department And Another Vs.- M. Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, 2013 (2) SLR 429 (S.C.) Union of India & Anr. Vs.- Shashank Goswami & Anr. and (2006) 5 SCC 766 , State of J & K And Others-Vs.- Sajad Ahmed Mir. 14. In the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 , Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs.- Union of India And Others, a detail guideline has been formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration of a compassionate appointment. The guideline is as follows:- “While considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts. ” 15. In the case reported in (2011) 13 SCC 42 , Local Administration Department And Another Vs.- M. Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that any application for compassionate appointment has to be made before the authority concerned promptly and without any unreasonable delay and any such application submitted after a long and unreasonable delay is liable to be rejected. It has been further directed in the decision that the authority concerned must dispose of an application for compassionate appointment expeditiously and without any unreasonable delay. 16. In the decision reported in 2013 (2) SLR 429 (S.C.) Union of India & Anr. Vs.- Shashank Goswami & Anr. it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if in any scheme for compassionate appointment itself any amount of income of the deceased’s family is prescribed as the upper limit. No appointment should be made ignoring such restriction. 17. In the decision reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 , State of J & K And Others-Vs.- Sajad Ahmed Mir. it has been decided that a compassionate appointment to any public office is an exception to the general rule of appointment to such public office and if it is found that the deceased’s family survived for long years without any appointment then there is no need for any compassionate appointment. it has been decided that a compassionate appointment to any public office is an exception to the general rule of appointment to such public office and if it is found that the deceased’s family survived for long years without any appointment then there is no need for any compassionate appointment. But in the case the applicant filed his first application for compassionate appointment after about 4 and a half years of death of his father and the applicant filed a Writ Petition against the decision of the authority rejecting his prayer again after about 3 years from the date of such order of rejection. 18. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner’s father Late Prabir Chandra Roy died on 13.08.2000 leaving behind his widow, two sons including the petitioner, two married daughters and one unmarried daughter. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner submitted a representation with all documents through proper channel, to the Respondent Authority on 22.06.2001 praying for compassionate appointment of her son, i. e., the petitioner. So, there is no inordinate delay behind the application. After submission of such application the petitioner pursued it with all diligence at every stage. 19. It is now settled law that employment on any compassionate ground is not a matter of right and such a prayer should be allowed only when the family of the deceased employee falls in an acute financial crisis and penury, because of the sudden death of the only earning member of the family. 20. In the present case the deceased’s last monthly gross pay was Rs. 12,460.00 (rupees twelve thousand four hundred sixty only) as found from Annexure R-II in affidavit-in-opposition. At the time of his death the family pension received by his widow was Rs. 2,438.00 (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty eight only) per month. It is stated in affidavit-in-opposition that the aforesaid amount was the basic pension amount with which some allowances should be added, but the amount of such allowances, if any, has not been mentioned. However, during hearing we are informed by Mr. Sanyal, that the aforesaid amount of family pension, i.e., Rs. 2,438.00 (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty eight only) was inclusive of all the allowances. 21. The terminal benefits admittedly received by the family of the deceased, with break-up are as follows: Gratuity Rs. 2,50,000.00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only), G. P. F. Rs. Sanyal, that the aforesaid amount of family pension, i.e., Rs. 2,438.00 (rupees two thousand four hundred thirty eight only) was inclusive of all the allowances. 21. The terminal benefits admittedly received by the family of the deceased, with break-up are as follows: Gratuity Rs. 2,50,000.00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only), G. P. F. Rs. 91,547.00 (rupees ninety-one thousand five hundred forty seven only ), G. I. Rs. 8,000.00 (rupees eight thousand only) Leave Encashment, Rs. 62,145.00 (rupees sixty-two thousand one hundred forty five only) totalling a sum of Rs. 4,11,692.00 (rupees four lakh eleven thousand six hundred ninety two only). Out of those amounts the amount of G. P. F. And Leave Encashment was his entitlement in lieu of leave which he did not enjoy. The deceased had his contribution in G. I. also. So, the interest on those funds should not be taken into account as being benefits allowed by the employer. The actual terminal benefit received by the deceased family was the Gratuity amount, i. e., Rs. 2,50,000. 00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only). The petitioner’s sisters had their respective shares in all those aforesaid fund received by the family. So, the actual fund in the hand of the deceased’s family at the time of the death of the deceased was Rs. 1,64,000.00 (rupees one lakh sixty four thousand only). The interest on that amount at the rate of 8 per cent p. a. may be at best Rs. 13,120.00 (thirteen thousand one hundred twenty only) and the monthly interest would be a sum of Rs. 1,093.00 (rupees one thousand ninety three only). The petitioner’s family had an income of Rs. 600.00 (rupees six hundred only) per month from landed properties. So, the total monthly income in the hands of the deceased’s family at the time of the death of the deceased was Rs. 4,131.00 (rupees four thousand one hundred thirty one only), for the maintenance of four adult members. As mentioned earlier the last gross pay of the deceased was Rs. 12,640.00 (rupees twelve thousand six hundred forty only). So, there was a serious fall of income of the family at the time of sudden death of the deceased. That apart, a sum of Rs. As mentioned earlier the last gross pay of the deceased was Rs. 12,640.00 (rupees twelve thousand six hundred forty only). So, there was a serious fall of income of the family at the time of sudden death of the deceased. That apart, a sum of Rs. 4,131.00 (rupees four thousand one hundred thirty one only) can never be considered as adequate for the maintenance of four adult members, even if, the higher value of rupees in the year 2000 is taken into consideration. The deceased’s family was, therefore, definitely in serious financial crisis when the deceased died in harness. 22. It is true that long 14 years have already passed away since the deceased’s death, but the petitioner is not responsible for such a long delay. It is found from the record that at each and every stage the officers of the State took long and unreasonable time to take decisions and such an apathy and attitude of the officers of the State is supposed to frustrate the entire scheme of compassionate appointment. The Tribunal itself took about long 5 years to dispose of the O. A. No. 624 of 2005 filed by the petitioner. So, the State/Respondent should not be permitted now to plead that since the deceased’s family could survive for such a long period without any extra assistance, they can survive in the same way for the rest of their lives also. 23. Another point pleaded by Ms. Bhattacharrya, was that as the petitioner married without any employment, it should be assumed that the petitioner is quite able to maintain his family well, otherwise he would not have added another member in his family by marriage. It is commonly known that in our society boys are sometimes compelled to marry without having any independent source of income due to pressures from the family. So, the aforesaid contention is not also acceptable. 24. Last, but not the least, from Annexure R-II attached to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State/Respondent, it is found that Block Medical Officer of Health of Reapara Rural Hospital, where the deceased had been working expressed his view that the deceased’s family depends on the family pension only and the family is in poverty. 25. 24. Last, but not the least, from Annexure R-II attached to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State/Respondent, it is found that Block Medical Officer of Health of Reapara Rural Hospital, where the deceased had been working expressed his view that the deceased’s family depends on the family pension only and the family is in poverty. 25. So, from what has been discussed above it is clear that the learned Tribunal’s decision is wrong and against the true spirit of justice requiring interference by us in the writ jurisdiction. Any of the decisions cited by Ms. Bhattacharrya do not come to any help for the Respondent/State as discussed earlier. 26. The petitioner is legally entitled to an employment on compassionate ground. 27. The order of the learned Tribunal in O. A. No. 624 of 2005 dated 20.09.2010 is hereby set aside. The Respondent will consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground when the next vacancy arises, in accordance with the petitioner’s qualifications. 28. The Writ Petition is thus allowed without any order as to costs. 29. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.