WP(C) 8790/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. B.Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B.Das, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents. The petitioner lost her father in 1981, who was working as a constable i n the police department while she was hardly 8 years old. She applied for appoin tment on compassionate ground after she became major and in fact she was engaged as Woman Homeguard since 1995 and till now she has been working as Homeguard on fixed monthly salary. As stated by her, she appeared in interview conducted in the year 1997-98 and 2000 for the post of LDA-Cum-Typist and inspite of her sele ction and being placed at the top of the merit list, she was not appointed in an y of the post lying vacant at the relevant point of time. It appears that the petitioner’s case/application for compassionate appo intment was not sent up to the Govt. for approval. As per present scheme for app ointment on compassionate ground, the approval of the Govt. is a must, but since her case was not forwarded to the Govt, no decision could be taken till this da te. Considering the aforesaid submissions, in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- authorities par ticularly the Director General of Police, Respondent No.2 to forward the petitio ner’s case to the Government with all necessary particulars and documents for co nsideration within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of cer tified copy of this order. Her case may be considered by the Govt. strictly as p er existing scheme on compassionate appointment and also guidelines issued in th e judicial pronouncements by this court in Faziron Nessa & ors -vs- State of Ass am and ors, reported in 2004(4) GLT 340 wherein, it has been directed, amongst o thers, that compassionate appointments are to be considered on need basis upon c omparative assessment. In holding so, this court followed the ruling in Umesh Ku mar Nagpal-vs- State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 wherein the Apex Co urt, considering the factors necessary for offering compassionate appointment, h eld that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting through t he employee’s death. Importantly, it is also observed that compassionate appoint ment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period, which must be specifi ed in the rules. Besides, the Apex Court in State Bank of India-vs- Somvir Singh , reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 held that the scheme providing for compassionate appointment could be made available only where deceased employee left her family in penury or without any means of livelihood.