JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, General Administrative Department [GAD] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for compassionate appointment under the scheme framed by the State Government. 3. The case projected by the petitioner, in brief, is that, the father of the petitioner, Fuat Hussain was an employee under the Public Works Department [PWD], Government of Assam and he died-in-harness on 11.12.2014 while serving in the post of Peon in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati AACP Division, Ganesguri, Guwahati. At the time of his death, he left behind his wife, one son [the petitioner] and two daughters. The petitioner was born on 07.01.1988 and he studied upto Class-X. The petitioner has stated that his father was the only bread earner in the family and at the sudden demise of his father, the family started facing financial constraints. 4. After the death of his father on 11.12.2014, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no. 5 on 13.03.2015 seeking his appointment on compassionate grounds in any Grade-III Post. The application was duly received by the respondent no. 5 and the same was also forwarded thereafter, to the Office of the respondent no. 4 along with the supporting documents on 27.03.2015. When no communication was received from the respondent authorities as regards consideration of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner made queries at the offices of the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5. The petitioner came to know that the respondent no. 4 returned back the proposal to the respondent no. 5 in July, 2015 requesting the respondent no. 5 to re-submit the proposal with proper format and other relevant documents [Death Certificate, Application Form, Qualification Certificate, etc.]. When no further communication was received by the petitioner since then, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking the direction, mentioned above. 5. Ms. Gayan, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that she has not received any up-to-date instructions and no response has been filed by any of the respondent authorities. 6. Mr. When no further communication was received by the petitioner since then, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking the direction, mentioned above. 5. Ms. Gayan, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that she has not received any up-to-date instructions and no response has been filed by any of the respondent authorities. 6. Mr. Baruah, learned State Counsel has submitted that he has also not received any up-to-date instructions in the matter. 7. The purpose behind providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. The policy of the State Government for compassionate appointment is to provide an employment immediately to redeem the family in distress. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased Government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing a gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. The law is settled that appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. 8. In the State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others , reported in [2025] 5 SSC 712 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles after considering a number of precedents :- 32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge : 32.1. 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. 32.2. 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. 32.3. 32.2. 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. 32.3. 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. 32.5. 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. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. * * * * * 41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent- writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution……. 9. The employee concerned in this case died-in-harness on 11.12.2014. A period of more than a decade has gone by. The petitioner is found to have not pursued the matter very seriously since 2016. A long lapse of time has occurred and with the lapse of more than a decade since 11.12.2014, the sense of immediacy for the purpose of securing appointment on compassionate ground is no longer there. 10. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that at this standpoint, elapse of more than a decade, no direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is called for. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered. No cost.