JUDGMENT The petitioner’s father who was working as Road Supervisor in the respondents department died in harness on 03rd November, 1999, which fact is evident from the legal heir certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Anantnag on 14th February, 20 (Annexure “E”). Petitioner filed application dated 02nd February, 2000 and sought consideration for being appointed on compassionate grounds, copy whereof is placed on writ record and has been marked by some authority in the office of Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Kulgam on 21st February, 2000. The petitioner has sought consideration for being appointed on compassionate grounds within prescribed period of time. The respondents instead of taking immediate decision in considering the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds, referred the matter to the various authorities, notwithstanding this fact, the requisite document viz legal heirs certificate was already issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Anantnag. From the documents placed on writ record, it appears that dispute was raised about the date of birth certificate of the petitioner, which as per annexure of the writ petition was clarified by Principal, Government Hr. Secondry School, Qaimah by sending communication on 24th August, 2007 to Executive Engineer, (R&B) Division, Kulgam. When the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds did not bear any fruit, he was constrained to file this petition. Respondents in their reply affidavit/objections have stated that the claim of the petitioner is belated and it is primarily for this reason, claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The solemn purpose underlying the policy of the Government in providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships to which family is subjected to, because of the death of the bread earner. The Authorities in such type of cases are duty bound to consider such claims in a hassle free manner and without waste of time. In the facts of this case and the material placed on record, it appears that the respondents have failed to exercise their statutory duty cast upon them by Rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 for early consideration of the claim of the petitioner. In the fact and circumstances of this case it cannot be denied that the respondents have failed to perform their statutory obligation cast on them by the rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994. Survival is the basic instinct of human being. In the fact and circumstances of this case it cannot be denied that the respondents have failed to perform their statutory obligation cast on them by the rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994. Survival is the basic instinct of human being. For his survival, he can even have recourse to begging. The survival of a person in an un-dignified manner cannot be the ground for denying his claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Delay which is mainly attributed to the conduct of the authorities could not become reason for denying the claim of petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided to a person, so as to enable him and his family members to have minimum basic requirements of the life and live life in a dignified manner. In this case, respondents while denying claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay have not stated as to how and in which manner the petitioner has succeeded in keeping his flesh and bone together. The delay in this case cannot become ground for denying the appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner. For the above state reasons, this writ petition alongwith connected IA(s) is disposed of and respondents 2 to 4 are directed to consider and offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with the mandate contained in Rules notified vide SRO 43 of 1994. The respondents to pass necessary orders within six weeks from the date copy of this order is served. Disposed of as above.