JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. 2. The matter pertains to a claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. As per the facts projected, the father of the petitioner. Late Joy Kumar Deuri was working as Grade-IV employee in the Assam Secretariat and had passed away on 01.04.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and her name was forwarded by the District Level Committee. It is also projected that on 18.05.2016, the State Level Committee had considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. On 05.08.2016, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner to examine the aspect of applicability of para 15 of O.M. dated 01.06.2015. The petitioner claims to have filed a representation on 30.08.2023 which has not been paid any heed to. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that necessary orders be passed for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Per contra, Shri A. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel has raised the issue of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is submitted that the death was in the year 2014 and the writ petition was filed only on 19.08.2024 i.e. after about 10 years. It is submitted that the objective of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate relief to a bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner. The learned State Counsel has also referred to the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. AIR 2023 SC 1467 and has submitted that after 10 years, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. The rival submissions have been considered. 7. The objective of offering an appointment on compassionate ground is only to give immediate succour to the bereaved family which has lost the sole breadwinner and after a decade from the said death, no such directions can be issued. 8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2014 and in the meantime, a decade has passed. There is no acceptable or cogent reason explaining the delay for the period from 2016 when the meeting of the SLC was held. 8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the death of the government employee was in the year 2014 and in the meantime, a decade has passed. There is no acceptable or cogent reason explaining the delay for the period from 2016 when the meeting of the SLC was held. As on today, almost 10 years have passed and any direction towards consideration of the claim of the petitioner further would not be in sync with the claim of compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has laid down as follows: “7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: (i) That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. (ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. (iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. (v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members together with the income from any other source.” 9. (v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members together with the income from any other source.” 9. This Court has noticed that on the aspect of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case while examining the said aspect from the context of the scheme has also laid down that even if the delay is on account of the authorities, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. The relevant part as observed in paragraph 7.5 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein-below: “7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, an noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as thought it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.” 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.