JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. U. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department and Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the Minutes of the Meeting of the State Level Committee (SLC) dated 27.11.2015, whereby, the proposal of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the grounds of non-availability of vacancies and the lapse of two years from the date of application. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider him for appointment against any available vacant post of Grade-IV. 3. The father of the petitioner, Late Rama Kanta Nath, who joined as Surveillance Worker in the Office of the District Malaria Eradication Officer, Nagaon, under the Joint Director of Health Services, Nagaon, on 05.04.1968, died in harness on 22.10.1998 after serving for more than 30 (thirty) years in the Department, leaving behind his wife and five unmarried daughters. The petitioner, being the eldest daughter, was 19 (nineteen) years old at the time of the death of her father. 4. As the family members of the petitioner were facing extreme financial hardship on account of the death of her father, the petitioner immediately submitted an application with all relevant documents before the District Malaria Eradication Officer, Nagaon, on 18.11.1998 praying for appointment on compassionate ground, which was forwarded to the concerned authority and thereafter, to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department on 28.04.1999. Despite repeated recommendations by the Joint Director of Health Services, Nagaon, for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in terms of the State Policy, no consideration was made. Subsequently, in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Achut Ranjan Das & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2006 (IV) GLT 674 , the system of consideration of proposals for compassionate appointment by the District Level Committee (DLC) and the State Level Committee (SLC) was introduced. The Joint Director of Health Services, thereafter, resubmitted the case of the petitioner before the DLC and in its meeting held on 13.12.2012, the DLC recommended the proposal of the petitioner to the SLC for approval. 5. The Joint Director of Health Services, thereafter, resubmitted the case of the petitioner before the DLC and in its meeting held on 13.12.2012, the DLC recommended the proposal of the petitioner to the SLC for approval. 5. When no consideration was made by the SLC, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 3041/2017. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the State respondents placed the Minutes of the SLC dated 27.11.2015, which reflects that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had been rejected on the grounds that there were no further vacancies and that two years had already elapsed from the date of the application. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to challenge the Minutes of the SLC meeting dated 27.11.2015. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time there were vacancies and the petitioner being eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground had submitted her application within time. It is the respondent authorities who delayed the consideration of her case which resulted in the lapse of two years from the date of application. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s case on the grounds of non-availability of vacancies and lapse of time is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner and her family had been facing extreme financial hardship and continue to face the same. The petitioner deserves immediate assistance to enable the family members of the government employee who died in harness to tide over their crisis and secure their livelihood. 7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, submits that this Court, in a batch of writ petitions, the leading case being Abdul Kadir Bokshi vs. The State of Assam & Ors., passed in WP(C) No. 342/2025 , vide order dated 03.04.2025, set aside the rejection of all compassionate appointments by the DLC/SLC which were challenged and pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025. The Court directed that such cases be considered and disposed of on merit, taking into account the various guidelines in force prior to 01.04.2017. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner by directing the respondent authorities to reconsider her case. 8. Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, and Mr. The Court directed that such cases be considered and disposed of on merit, taking into account the various guidelines in force prior to 01.04.2017. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner by directing the respondent authorities to reconsider her case. 8. Mr. D. P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, and Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents, vehemently opposed the grievance raised by the petitioner and submitted that the State Government has done away with the scheme for compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 for all family members of government servants who died in harness prior to 01.04.2017, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 . They submit that the application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 1998, the first writ petition was filed in the year 2017 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2023 after a lapse of twenty-five years from the date of the application. The scheme for compassionate appointment is intended to meet the immediate and unexpected hardship faced by the family consequent to the death of the breadwinner. Heavily relying on the judgment of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) , the learned counsels for the respondents submit that after a lapse of more than 25 years from the date of the application, the sense of immediacy has been lost and entertaining such a claim would serve no purpose. More so, the State Government has already done away with the scheme for compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, which was challenged by some persons, but no interference has been made by this Court and therefore, continues to hold the field. 9. More so, the State Government has already done away with the scheme for compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024, which was challenged by some persons, but no interference has been made by this Court and therefore, continues to hold the field. 9. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that the case of Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertains to cases where this Court has directed that the applications for compassionate appointment of the petitioners who had challenged the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2024 and whose cases were pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025 be considered and disposed of on merit, whereas, the petitioner in the present case has not challenged the OM dated 18.09.2024 and therefore, cannot be granted similar relief as the relief in the above cases was provided only to petitioners who had challenged the OM and that too on the concession given by the learned Advocate General, Assam, in relation to cases pending before this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsels for the respondents submit that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The petitioner, after the death of her father, Late Rama Kanta Nath submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 18.11.1998. The DLC recommended the case of the petitioner to the SLC pursuant to its meeting held on 13.12.2012. The SLC rejected the case of the petitioner vide its Minutes of the Meeting dated 27.11.2015 on the grounds of non-availability of vacancy and the elapse of two years from the date of application. The petitioner, without having knowledge of the rejection of her case, approached this Court for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground vide WP(C) No. 3041/2017 and upon the learned counsel for the State respondents placing before the Court the Minutes of Meeting of the SLC held on 27.11.2015 rejecting the case of the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2019 with liberty to challenge the said minutes. 12. It is seen that the petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of more than 19 years, without making any attempt to ascertain the consideration made by the SLC in rejecting her claim, as the earlier writ petition was filed only in the year 2017. 12. It is seen that the petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of more than 19 years, without making any attempt to ascertain the consideration made by the SLC in rejecting her claim, as the earlier writ petition was filed only in the year 2017. Therefore, there is a considerable delay in approaching this Court as the petitioner has filed the application way back in the year 1998. 13. The law is well settled that the object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee due to the death of the breadwinner of the family and the grant of compassionate appointment after the crisis is over would be of no avail. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is related to the financial condition and hardship faced by the family of the deceased. Therefore, a claim for compassionate appointment would not be entertained after a considerable period of time. 14. In the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “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. 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. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 32.5. 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. 32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. 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. 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 bread- winner, 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 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. 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter.” 15. In the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner in the year 1998 and the DLC recommended the case of the petitioner to the SLC pursuant to its meeting held on 13.12.2012 and eventually the SLC rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its Minutes of the Meeting dated 27.11.2015. The petitioner filed the first writ petition in the year 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2019 with a liberty to challenge the Minutes of the SLC, whereby, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2023. 16. It appears that the petitioner was not vigilant in approaching the Court to claim that no action had been taken by the respondents in furtherance of her application, as she had only approached this Court in the year 2017 after a lapse of 19 years. Furthermore, the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of more than four years from the date of dismissal of her earlier writ petition. Thus, in my view, the sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. 17. Insofar as the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra) and the batch of writ petitions is concerned, it is noticed that the petitioners in those cases have challenged the OM dated 18.09.2024 issued by the Government of Assam, whereby, the scheme for compassionate appointment has been done away with for all family members of government servants who died in harness prior to 01.04.2017 in complete suppression of all earlier policy/scheme OMs relating to compassionate appointments. This Court, on the concessions made by the learned Advocate General, Assam, in respect of the cases pending before this Court challenging the OM dated 18.09.2024 and with the consent of all the parties, directed that the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioners in all writ petitions pending as on 03.04.2025 before this Court, which challenged the OM dated 18.09.2024, be considered and disposed of on merit by the concerned DLC/SLC, taking into consideration the various guidelines in force prior to 01.04.2017. It was also directed that while deciding the applications of those petitioners, the respondents shall not take recourse to the OM dated 18.09.2024, but that the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) may be considered/applied by the concerned authorities. The Court further clarified that the order cannot be used as a precedent for cases filed on or after 04.04.2025 and shall apply only to cases pending before this Court as on 03.04.2025. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner would not be entitled to similar relief, as the petitioner has not challenged the OM dated 18.09.2024, which distinguishes the present case from Abdul Kadir Bokshi (supra). The OM dated 18.09.2024, having been in vogue and issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) , no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted, as the sense of immediacy has been lost as the very object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis arising from the death of the breadwinner, which leaves the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a considerable lapse of time, when the crisis is over. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s).