WP(C) 1129/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his case for compassionate a ppointment and such appointment being considered by the District Level Committee , for the private respondents. It is contended by Mr. U Das, learned counsel that earlier in WP' No.8244/03, th is Court had directed consideration of the petitioner’s claim and accordingly th e petitioner’s claim should have been considered appropriately under the Die in- harness scheme of the government . But it is submitted by Mr. BC Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate that the petitioner ’s father had died on 4.10.1997 and he belatedly applied for compassionate appoi ntment only on 25.8.2000 and on this ground his case was rejected by the Distric t Level Committee. Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel points out that when the petitioner has survived for nearly 14 years after the death of his father and was late in appl ying for compassionate appointment, it is clear that he is not in any serious ha rdship or penury and therefore is not deserving of compassionate appointment. Mr. SK Deuri, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that , his clients are now working in their respective posts after their names were r ecommended for compassionate appointment by the competent Committee and the priv ate respondents are more deserving than the writ petitioner, for compassionate c onsideration. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he had applied late for compassion ate appointment and that his father expired on 4.10.1997. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no further direc tion for considering the petitioner’s claim can be given as there was considerat ion of his claim by the Committee, which however found the petitioner to be inel igible, because of his belated application. The case is accordingly found to be without merit and the same is dismissed.