ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shree Parkash Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken file from him and as such he is not in a position to argue the case. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of death of his father during service. It is further prayed, the respondents be directed to consider the application dated 06.07.2009 which is pending before them for compassionate appointment. 4. The father of the petitioner late Devilal @ Devilal Tirky was born on 10.03.1949 and on 01.12.1975 he was appointed as Khalasi and was posted in the office of respondents Ranchi Branch. On March 2009 he was to be superannuated but unfortunately on 05.02.2007 he died due to breathing problems. 5. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions for his appointment on compassionate ground. In paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that in reply to the lawyer’s notice the respondents informed the petitioner that his application for appointment on compassionate ground, which has been received by the respondents office, is pending for consideration by the department in accordance with Rules, regulations, guidelines and policy decisions taken by the Government of India from time to time for granting such compassionate appointment. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents Soil Survey Officer of Union of India, respondent no. 1, it is stated that in view of the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the High Court and Administrative Tribunal cannot give direction for appointment of compassionate appointment but merely direct consideration of the claim for such an appointment. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner did not wait for outcome of the application filed by him which has also not been furnished in prescribed format and instead of that the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Taken into account that no decision has been taken by the respondents, the respondent no. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner did not wait for outcome of the application filed by him which has also not been furnished in prescribed format and instead of that the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Taken into account that no decision has been taken by the respondents, the respondent no. 1 is directed to take a decision, on the application of the petitioner, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order, if the decision has already not been taken as yet on the application. 8. In view of the above observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of.