WP(C) 2242/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. B.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground since his father, who was working as U. D. Assistant under the respondent No.3, died in harness on 20.2.2000. As a legal heir, petitioner filed application for compas sionate appointment on 23.3.2002 and the said application was not initially forw arded to the competent authority. However, after persistent persuasion his case was placed before the District Level Committee on 17.1.2007. ON 12.7.2007 the D istrict Level Committee took a decision in favour of one candidate, however peti tioner’s case was left out inasmuch as it was not recommended by the aforesaid committee. The respondent-authority furnished no ground/reason for rejecting his case. This court vide orders dated 15.6.2011 and 8.8.2011 directed the Deputy C ommissioner, Hailakandi to disclose the reason for rejecting the case of the pet itioner and in preferring the case of other candidate. Mr. B J Ghosh, learned State Counsel submits that he has received no instruction s as yet. The petitioner is not challenging the recommendation of the other candidate. It is stated at the bar that since the said candidate has been appointed, the peti tioner has no grievance against the appointment of that candidate and his appoin tment may not be disturbed. There is no indication in the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee for compassionate appointment of the petitioner that his case would be placed for reconsideration. Moreover, from the facts nar rated in the petition, it is found that the period of more than 10 years has alr eady elapsed from the death of the petitioner’s father. Since father of the petitioner died-in-harness, in my considered view, the purpo se of appointment on compassionate ground has been frustrated and at this stage the petitioner’s case cannot be considered. The law in regard to appointment on compassionate ground has been settled by the Apex Court in several cases. This court also had occasion to deal with a simila r matter in Faziron Nessa & ors -Vs- State of Assam & ors reported in 2004 (4) G LT 340, wherein it has been directed, amongst other, that compassionate appointm ents are to be considered on need basis upon comparative assessment. This court followed the ruling in Umesh Kumar Nagpal -vs- State of Haryana, reported in (19 94) 4 SCC 138 wherein the Apex Court, considering the factors necessary for offe ring compassionate appointment, held that mere death of an employee does not ent itle his family to compassionate appointment. The authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to mee t the financial crisis resulting through the employee’s death. Importantly, it i s also observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. Besides, the Apex Cou rt in State Bank of India-vs- Somvir Singh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 held th at the scheme providing for compassionate appointment could be made available on ly where deceased employee left her family in penury or without any means of liv elihood. In the present case, in my considered view, the payer for the compassionate appo intment cannot be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as he and his family have b een able to survive for such long period of 10 years without any appointment, which really implies that the applicant has source of living. In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed.