WP(C) 5839/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B Ramchiary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Ahmed, learned counsel who is standing in on behalf of the standing counse l for the Excise Department. Mr. B Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Finan ce Department appearing for the respondent No.2 is also heard in the matter. 2. The non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appoin tment on the ground of belated filing of application, in pursuant to the Court’s direction dated 21.5.2010 in W P (C) No.2895/2010, has forced the petitioner to approach the Court a second time. 3. The father of the petitioner Late Mamat Kr. Boro died on 6.10.2008 while serving as an Inspector of Excise. Then the petitioner applied on 18.12.2008 fo r compassionate appointment as per the Government Policy but since the said appl ication was mis-placed, a second application was filed on 11.6.2009 in the presc ribed format, seeking consideration for his compassionate appointment. However t he petitioner’s application was considered to be delayed the same having been fi led 3 months after the death of the serving employee and accordingly was not con sidered by the respondents. 4. Mr. Ramchiary, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the G overnment Memorandum dated 9.9.1983, no time limit was fixed for filing applicat ion and such requirement of making application within 3 months from the death of the deceased came to be circulated only in the year 2009. The learned counsel r efers to the decision of this Court in Faziron Nessa vs. State of Assam reported in (2010) 5 GLR 461 to contend that the time limit of 3 months prescribed by th e Government for submission of application from the date of death of the Governm ent employee, has not been extended to 12 months. Accordingly it is submitted th at since the application filed by the petitioner on 11.6.2009 (second applicatio n) is within 12 months from the death (6.10.2008) of the petitioner’s father, th e same be considered by the authorities. 5. The time stipulated by this Court in Faziron Nessa (Supra) to 12 months is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Accordingly as agreed to, this case is disposed of by directing the resp ondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment under t he notified Scheme of the Government, as per the application made by the petitio ner on 11.6.2009 (Annexure-E). 7. Necessary steps for consideration along with other similarly situated ap plicants be made, by following the Government Policy and the decision(s) of this Court in Ajit Pator vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (3) GLT 306 and Faziron Nessa (Supra). 8. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.