WP(C) 2601/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Although by ord er dated 23.5.2011, the matter was directed to be listed showing the name of Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and in the cause list, hi s name has been shown. Today, neither Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. AG appea red nor any prayer has been made on his behalf. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate groun d. The prayer so made on account of death of his father while in service way bac k in 1996 ( 13.3.1996).Thus, by now more than 15 years have passed by since the father of the petitioner expired while in service. The petitioner, as per declar ation made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is aged about 38 years. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that th e deceased has left behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain communications to claim compassionate appointment . Law is well settled that compassionate appointment is provided to redeem a family in distress after the death of the sole bread earner. After a consider able lapse of time, there may not be any necessity for compassionate appointment . In this connection, This Court has laid down certain guidelines in Aychut Ranj an Das & ors. Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2006) 4 GLT 674 and Foz iron Nessa & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2010) 4 GLT 340. After long 15 years, I see no reason to entertain the prayer of the peti tioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Be that as it may, the petitione r had already approached this Court by filing WP(C) 5235/2009, which was dispose d of by order dated 2711.2009 with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner as per the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Su pra). After disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner could not have fi led another writ petition with the same prayer. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. D. Saikia, learne d counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was informed verbally b y the Deputy Commissioner that his prayer for appointment on compassionate groun d has been rejected by the District Level Committee. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that second writ pe tition in the same cause of action is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ pe tition is dismissed.