ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta for the petitioner. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to grant the petitioner appointment on compassionate basis w.e.f. 18.10.2001 and in alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents may be directed to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of order dated 20.11.2006 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19324 of 2006. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mehta and having perused the documents on record, it would appear that late father of the petitioner Shri Anilbhai Tuljashankar Dave was working as a Principal in a school run by the respondent No.1. He had expired while on duty on 22.09.2001 and whereas an application had been made by the present petitioner within a period of one month i.e. on 18.10.2001 for being granted compassionate appointment. It would appear that since the application had not been considered for a reasonable period of time, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, on 27.01.2005 and whereas the same also not being decided by the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.19324 of 2006. It would appear that a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.11.2006, had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2005 in light of the Government policy dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 as adopted by the respondents within a period of two months from date of receipt of that order. It would appear that the petitioner had informed the respondents about the said order vide his communication dated 12.12.2006 and whereas the petitioner had been called for a personal hearing on 22.01.2007 before the respondent No.1 with regard to the the grievance ventilated by the petitioner. It would appear that ultimately vide communication dated 29.01.2007, the petitioner had been informed by the respondent No.1 that as and when the vacancy for compassionate appointment will be available with the respondent No.1, the petitioner would be appointed taking into consideration his high qualification. It would appear that from 2007, the petitioner does not appear to have been done anything and on the other hand, the respondent also had never informed the petitioner about the petitioner being entitled for appointment. It would appear that from 2007, the petitioner does not appear to have been done anything and on the other hand, the respondent also had never informed the petitioner about the petitioner being entitled for appointment. It would appear that later on i.e. approximately after 15 years vide communication dated 04.10.2022, the petitioner had informed the respondent No.1 that one junior clerk named Shri Atul Trivedi had retired on 30.09.2022 and whereas the petitioner may be appointed on said post, more particularly having regard to the qualification held by the petitioner. The said representation having not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having made an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the stipulated time period, ought to have been granted appointment on compassionate basis and whereas while the respondents had informed the petitioner that as and when a vacancy would arise in their set up, they would inform the petitioner, more particularly looking to the qualification held by the petitioner, yet, for a long time the petitioner was never informed about any vacancy and therefore, upon learning of a vacancy in the respondents, the petitioner had himself approached the respondents yet, till date, the respondents have not deemed it appropriate to appoint the petitioner or give appointment on any vacant post. Learned advocate would thus request that this Court may intervene and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on any appropriate post, more particularly looking to the qualifications held by the petitioner. 5. This Court had after having perused the averments, called upon the learned advocate as to whether the petitioner was employed anywhere and whereas learned advocate for the petitioner had expressed his ignorance about same, averments at para 3.3 reads as under: “The petitioner states that he is well educated and young person. He is B.Sc. (Maths) Comp. NIT pass having job.” 6. Thus, prima facie, it would appear to this Court that the petitioner appears to be a reasonably well educated person and also as per the averments in the petition, has an employment on his own. 7. He is B.Sc. (Maths) Comp. NIT pass having job.” 6. Thus, prima facie, it would appear to this Court that the petitioner appears to be a reasonably well educated person and also as per the averments in the petition, has an employment on his own. 7. To this Court, it would appear that present petition does not require to be considered at all, more particularly since it appears to this Court that the very purpose of granting appointment on compassionate basis, would get frustrated by any order of this Court in that regard. It appears to this Court that grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to his family to tied over the crisis, when the employed member of the family expires during service and whereas approximately 24 years after the demise of the earning member of the family, any request for grant of compassionate appointment would be without any purpose whatsoever. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor a source of appointment. 8. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.8842 – 8855 of 2022. In a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed about “the sense immediacy in the matters of compassionate appointment” and whereas observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 being relevant for present purpose, are reproduced herein below for benefit: “11. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: “9. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: “9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” (emphasis by us) In the said case, the claim of the appellant-applicant therein for compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there was no lapse on the part of the appellant-applicant therein in diligently pursuing the matter. The delay in considering the application of the appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appellant- applicant. Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present case, the conduct of the Respondents- Writ Petitioners cannot be said to be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case. As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts. 12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. 12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-State in furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. 13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained. 14. However, we must sound a strong word of reproach directed at the authorities of the Appellant-State, about the manner in which the applications for compassionate appointment of hundreds of dependents have been dealt with. Much uncertainty looms around the scope, extent and beneficiaries of the various schemes formulated by the State for governing compassionate appointment and therefore, the concerned authorities are unable/unwilling to positively decide claims for compassionate appointment. This may have ultimately resulted in prejudice to the families of many government employees dying in harness. Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. 15. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. 15. The question as to whether a direction issued several years after an application for compassionate appointment, to consider and decide such application, is in consonance with the object of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment, has been answered in the negative. However, we shall also examine whether these appeals must succeed on a second count, i.e., whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compassionate appointment vis-à-vis municipal employees dying in harness.” 10. Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would appear that for operation of a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment, the primary aspect to be considered is the since of immediacy in which the matters are considered and decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar situation having taken note of the fact that the applicant for the compassionate appointment had approached the High Court of Calcutta after a lapse of 10 years from the date of making application for compassionate appointment, had come to a conclusion that the sense of the immediacy in matter of compassionate appointment had been lost in the said case. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will apply with equal or if not more force in the facts of case, more particularly when one considers that while the respondent No.1 had informed the petitioner vide communication dated 29.01.2007 that the petitioner would be informed about any vacancies, which appear in quota of compassionate appointment within a set up of the respondent No.1 and whereas the petitioner had approached the respondent No.1 thereafter after 15 years inter alia informing the respondent of a vacancy, which had arisen. It would appear that as such, after the assurance given by the respondent No.1, while the petitioner would have been justified in waiting for a reasonable period of time, but a period of 15 years would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be too longer time for a person, who is awaiting compassionate appointment. It would appear that as such, after the assurance given by the respondent No.1, while the petitioner would have been justified in waiting for a reasonable period of time, but a period of 15 years would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be too longer time for a person, who is awaiting compassionate appointment. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner having waited for such an unduly long period of time, and having approached the respondents themselves after a period of 15 years and having approached this Court after a period of approximately 17 years, the sense of urgency in the case of compassionate appointment is completely lost. Another aspect which could also be adverted to is the fact that the present petitioner being a reasonably well educated person and in the petition itself, the petitioner having averred that he has employed, to this Court, it would appear that no case for grant of compassionate appointment at this stage, is made out. Hence, the present petition is disposed of rejected.