WP(C) 4538/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Als o heard Mr. S Saikia, learned Standing counsel, PWD, on behalf of respondent Nos . 1, 2, and 4 and Ms. VL Sinha, learned State counsel. Considering the grievance raised and as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motio n stage itself. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner’s father whil e working as Chowkidar under Executive Engineer, PWD, Building Division, Silchar , Cachar died in harness on 19.04.2002. Accordingly the petitioner by filing an application before the Executive Engineer applied for compassionate appointment under the relevant Scheme on 08.07.2004. Thereafter the Executive Engineer forwa rded the said application to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Building, Assam. However a fter a long gap i.e. on 27.04.2007, the Executive Engineer placed his case for c ompassionate appointment before the District Level Committee (DLC for short), wh erein the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No.7 for consideration. But till date, petitioner’s case has not been considered in terms of the relevant scheme and as per the law contained in that behalf. It is submitted by Mr. Laskar, that the case of the petitioner has not b een considered in view of the fact that his case is pending for more than 2(two) years. Broad guidelines for consideration of cases under the scheme for appoint ment of persons on compassionate ground were issued by this Court in Achyut Ranj an Das & Others Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, wherein the Co urt has pointed out that as one time measure, all pending cases were required to be considered as per the specific direction contained in paragraph 7 of the dec ision in Achyut Ranjan Das (supra). Following the fact that the DLC had not cons idered some cases of persons, who have applied for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the fact that their applications had been pending for mor e than two years, non-consideration of the cases of such persons came to be chal lenged and has been decided in Ajit Pator & Others Vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 646. In the backdrop of the law as indicated above, it is now required to be determined by the respondents, particularly, respondent No.3, namely, Deputy Com missioner-Cum-Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Cachar, as to whethe r the petitioner’s case had been considered by the DLC or not and if the same ha d not been considered, then the petitioner’s case shall be placed for considerat ion along with similarly situated persons if any, before the DLC and for such fu rther action(s) as are warranted by law. Considering the matter in its entirety and for the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority, more particularly respondent No.3, namely, Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, Dis trict Level Selection Committee, Cachar, to examine the case of the petitioner a nd do the needful in accordance with the observations made above. The result of the examination by the respondent No.3 as directed hereinabove shall be communic ated, in writing, to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be at liberty to ta ke recourse to such provisions of law if he feels aggrieved by the result of the examination of the petitioner’s case by the respondent No.3. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.