JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B Pathak, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms. D D Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government advocate for all the respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that his father died-in-harness on 01.07.2005 while he was working as U.B. Constable under the Superintendent of Police of Barpeta District. On his death, the deceased Government servant left behind his wife and two sons including the petitioner as well as two daughters. Since, the Late Government servant was the only bread earner of the family, the family of the deceased faced great financial hardship. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the scheme formulated by the State vide Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 (Annexure-H). The application submitted by the petitioner on 02.03.2006 (Annexure-I) was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (MPC) on 06.07.2006 (Annexure-J). 3. It may be noticed that the Superintendent of Police of Barpeta District in forwarding the application of the petitioner alongwith two other applicants under his covering letter vide Memo No. E/176/06/1049 also mentioned that the prescribed statements I & II were also enclosed for taking necessary action. Although, the petitioner was expecting to be appointed on compassionate basis, the respondent authorities did not consider his application for a long time and ultimately, the petitioner submitted his representations to the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District on 04.02.2009, 02.02.2010 and 07.07.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI and from which he came to learn that his application for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the District Level Committee as time barred. The petitioner, being aggrieved is before this Court. 4. Appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned counsel, Mr. B Pathak submits that the petitioner is duly qualified to be considered under the compassionate appointment scheme of the State as he has passed Class-XII (HSSLC). He submits that the father of the petitioner having expired on 01.07.2005, the petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment before the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District on 02.03.2006 which was forwarded by the said authority to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (MPC) on 06.07.2006 with all the necessary particulars and, therefore, the District Level Committee could not have rejected his application as time barred. 5. 5. Appearing for the respondents, the learned Additional Senior Government advocate, Ms. D D Barman refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 on 26.11.2012, wherein, it has been contended that the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District by way of Memo No. E/HC-1/07-08/1562 dated 09.05.2008 submitted a list of 28 applicants for consideration of the District Level Committee for appointment on compassionate basis. The writ petitioner was included at Serial No.19 of the said list and it was found that the application of the petitioner was not in the prescribed format along with the requisite papers. Subsequently, the writ petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed format which was received by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District on 17.10.2011. 6. The learned State counsel submits that the principles governing compassionate appointments has been settled by this Court in two writ petitions which are numbered as WP(C) No.2620/2009 i.e., Foziron Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors. and WP(C) No.262/2010, i.e., Prabhuttam Brahma Vs. State of Assam and Ors. This Court has held that in the event the applications remained pending and cannot be considered for want of vacancy or otherwise for a period of two years from the date of submission of such applications, it has to be understood as to have spent its force and also the time limit for submission of such applications was fixed as twelve months from the date of the death of the Government servant. She submits that in the instant case as well although the respondents received the application of the petitioner on 09.05.2008 but the same was defective and it was only on 17.10.2011 the petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed format along with the required documents for consideration of his case. Thus, the District Level Committee on 27.02.2012 considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same on account of delay. She, therefore, submits that in the given circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the District Level Committee. 7. During the course of the proceeding of this rejection, it was noticed that there are certain discrepancies on the date of submitting the application by the petitioner. She, therefore, submits that in the given circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the District Level Committee. 7. During the course of the proceeding of this rejection, it was noticed that there are certain discrepancies on the date of submitting the application by the petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the application was filed on 02.03.2006 and forwarded by the authority concerned to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (MPC) on 06.07.2006, while according to the respondents, the petitioner submitted his application on 09.05.2008 without the prescribed format and thereafter, on 17.10.2011 in the prescribed format. In order to resolve the controversy, this Court called for the relevant records from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District and the same has been produced by the learned State counsel today. 8. A perusal of the records produced by the learned State counsel shows that the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District submitted a proposal for appointment of applicants on compassionate basis to the Deputy Commissioner of Barpeta District, who is also the Chairman of the District Level Committee vide his covering letter under Memo No. E/APPTT-I/07/236 dated 26.02.2007. In the enclosed list of the covering letter, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 24. Besides indicating the name and address of the applicants, the Reserve or General category to which he/she belongs, the Date of Birth, Educational Qualification and the name and rank as well as the date of expiry of the Government servant, there are no remarks to indicate as to when such applications have been made. If such is the forwarding letter of the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District, it is not understood as to how the District Level Committee had come to its finding in its meeting held on 27.02.2012 by rejecting the application of the petitioner as time barred. 9. Despite the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District in response to the records requisitioned by this Court has furnished inconclusive records, it can well be understood that there were certain other documents which was placed before the District Level Committee when meeting was held on 27.02.2012. 9. Despite the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District in response to the records requisitioned by this Court has furnished inconclusive records, it can well be understood that there were certain other documents which was placed before the District Level Committee when meeting was held on 27.02.2012. Be that as it may, from the materials available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner submitted his application on 04.02.2009 which was thereafter forwarded by the Superintendent of Police of Barpeta District on 06.07.2006 mentioning that the prescribed statements I & II were also enclosed with the covering letter, but, however, there is no response from the respondents to the stand taken by the petitioner. 10. A perusal of the application annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition said to have been submitted by the petitioner in the prescribed format also do not indicate any date besides the date of verification by the authority concerned which is 19.11.2011. However, in the District Level Committee meeting minutes dated 27.02.2012, the date of application has been indicated as 17.10.2011. The decision of this Court as relied upon by the State respondents are decisions decided much after the petitioner had filed his application in the year 2006. Moreover, such decision has no retrospective application as can be seen from the case of Foziron Nessa & Ors. (Supra). In such circumstances, the question of the petitioner’s application being time barred would not arise. 11. It should be kept in mind that the scheme formulated by the State Government as it should be is to give some sort of relief to the family of the deceased Government servant who had died while rendering his service to the State Government. Although, the scheme which has been published vide the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1983 provides that a form is prescribed for processing the case for appointment on compassionate basis, it would also be incumbent upon the office of the deceased Government servant to assist such applicants and ensure that the applications are filed in the prescribed format. The petitioner submitted his application on 02.03.2006 and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District after having accepted the same to be in order as can be seen in the forwarding letter dated 06.07.2006. The petitioner submitted his application on 02.03.2006 and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District after having accepted the same to be in order as can be seen in the forwarding letter dated 06.07.2006. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the petitioner submitted his application with necessary particulars and documents for compassionate appointment soon after his father expired on 01.07.2005. The Apex Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 had held that non submission of an application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format cannot be a ground to reject such application. 12. It may be noticed that the vacancy position as projected by the police department before the District Level Committee which met on 27.02.2012 was that there are 7 vacancies in the post of Constable and 2 vacancies in the Grade-IV post. However, the committee recommended only 5 applicants for appointment against the compassionate scheme for consideration by the State Level Committee. 13. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and having come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s application could not have been rejected by the District Level Committee as being the time barred, the finding of the District Level Committee in so far as the petitioner is concerned is not sustainable and the same is interfered with. The respondent No. 4, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Barpeta District shall now forward the application of the petitioner to the District Level Committee for its consideration afresh within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the District Level Committee shall thereafter within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the communication from the Superintendent of Police of Barpeta District consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application. The District Level Committee in considering the application of the petitioner shall keep in mind the observations that has been given herein above. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.