WP(C) 3278/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 to 4. Mr. A. Thakur, learned counsel appears for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner’s father who died on 20.5.1999 while serving as the Senio r Inspector of Cooperative Societies, has approached this Court to challenge the recommendation of the District Level Committee, recommending the respondent No. 5 for appointment on compassionate basis to the only Grade-III vacancy available for compassionate category candidates. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C) 8259/ 2005 which was disposed of on 7.12.2005 directing consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment along with all similarly situated persons in accordan ce with law. 4. In the mean time the High Court disposed of a batch of writ petition(s) pertaining to claims for compassionate appointment. In this case i.e. Achyut Ra njan Das vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674, this Court after exa mining the State Governments scheme(s) for compassionate appointment and having regard to the pronouncement(s) of the Apex Court, directed that all pending clai ms for compassionate appointment will be considered together and the modalities of such consideration have also been indicated by the Court. It is provided that such claims are to be considered at first by the District Level Committee who h as to decide, who amongst the eligible candidates is entitled to compassionate a ppointment. The Committee has to compare the financial condition of the family o f the deceased and for deciding the financial condition, the criteria laid down in General Manager (D & PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary reported in (2004)7 SCC 271 is t o be considered. The recommendation made by the District Level Committee are the reafter to be considered by the State Level Committee and on the basis of such c onsideration, compassionate appointments are to be given. 5. Challenging the recommendation of the District Level Committee, Mr. R.P. Sarmah submits that the recommendation made by ignoring the claim of the petiti oner was not proper, as the respondent No.5 is in a better financial footing as compared to the writ petitioner. It is also argued that since the respondent No. 5 was a minor at the time of the death of her father, she could not have been co nsidered for compassionate appointment, after she attained majority. 6. The learned Government Advocate by relying on the counter affidavit (s) filed by the respondents 3 & 4 refers to the chart containing the particulars of the eligible candidates and submits that the financial condition of the respond ent No.5 who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category is relatively worse as comp ared to the financial condition of the family of the writ petitioner and therefo re the District Level Committee had rightly recommended the respondent No.5 for compassionate appointment by considering the relative merits of the claimants un der the said category. 7. Mr. A. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 refers to her counter affidavit and submits that the financial condition of the family of respondent No.5 is extremely precarious and they are unable to make ends meet , after the sudden demise of the sole bread earner and the family is practically in the category of a Below Poverty Line (BPL) Family. Accordingly it is contend ed that recommendation in favour of the respondent No.5 has rightly been made by the District Level Committee. It is further contended that the present writ petition has been prematur ely filed in as much as no appointment has been given to respondent No.5 as the same would be a matter of consideration by the State Level Committee and therefo re such premature writ petition ought not to be taken up for consideration by th e Court. 8. I have compared the financial status of the family of respondent No.5 an d the writ petitioner as is revealed from the Chart appended to the counter affi davit of respondent No.3. This clearly shows that the family of respondent No.5 is worse off than the writ petitioner. It may also be recorded that the father o f respondent No.5 died leaving behind his widow and 3 minor children including 2 daughters, the eldest of whom attained majority after the father’s demise. The family also belongs to the Scheduled Case Category. In comparison, the family condition of the writ petitioner is relatively better and apart from the writ petitioner himself, he has a sister and a mother in the family. 9. In the above circumstances, no fault can be found with the recommendatio n made by the District Level Committee in favour of the respondent No.5. 10. As regards the contention raised that the case of the respondent No.5 co uld not have been considered after she attained majority, it may be noted that t his Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) had directed consideration of all pending claims as a one time measure and therefore the consideration made of all pendin g cases including the cases of the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 by th e District Level Committee, long after the demises of the respective breadwinner is considered by me, to be consistent with the direction given by this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). 11. In view of the above discussion and considering further fact that the St ate Level Committee is yet to consider the recommendation of the District Level Committee(s), I do not find any justification to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.