WP(C) 1633/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms. M. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the Water Resources Development Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. B .J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel representing the Chief Secretary of the State. The petitioner is before this Court with the grievance that though she had duly submitted an application for compassionate appointment following the death of he r father in-harness, her request has not been processed and considered in terms of the guidelines contained in the judgment and order of this Court in Achyut Ra njan Das vs. State of Assam and ors, (2006) 4 GLT 674. At the time of his death, the petitioner has averred, that her father had been working as a Sectional Ass istant with the respondent-Department. This Court by order dated 27.04.2011 had requested Mr. Ghosh, learned State coun sel to obtain instructions, in particular as to the decision, if any, taken by t he State Level Committee on petitioner’s claim. Mr. Ghosh, today, has laid befo re this Court a copy of the letter No.WR(E)78/2011/19 dated 02.05.2011 of the D eputy Secretary (I) to the Govt. of Assam, Water Resources Department, Dispur, G uwahati. The aforementioned letter discloses, in clear terms, that the State Lev el Committee has rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment o n 28.07.2008 as the same then was pending for over 2 years. The minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee referred to hereinabove also bear out this decision. This Court in Ajit Pator & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors, 2009 (3) GLT 306 bein g confronted with the same question had clarified on a conjoint reading of the direction (I) and (X) embodied in the judgment rendered in Achyut Ranjan Das vs . State of Assam and ors, (Supra) that as a one time measure cases pending then, were required to be considered in accordance with the other clauses and that o nce such a consideration was complete, the applications pending thereafter for a period of more than 2 years without being attended to need not be dealt with f urther. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the State Leve l Committee when judged by the above touchstone cannot be sustained in law and o n facts. Though, the aforementioned decision was taken at a point of time when the above clarification had not been provided by this Court, as on date, in the face thereof it cannot be upheld, more particularly when it appears from the re cords available that the case of the petitioner had been recommended for compass ionate appointment by the jurisdictional District Level Committee. The petition is thus allowed. The State Level Committee is hereby directed to take an appropriate decision vis -à-vis the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation accorded by the D.L.C., Karimganj, however in conformity with law as well as the guidelines laid down b y this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. State of Assam and ors, (Supra). No costs .