WP(C) 3553/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. The affidavit-in-opposition on record placed by the Registry pertains to the Builder’s Association of India, the petitioner versus State respondents. In the instant case, the petitioner is Md. Rubul Ahmed. Although in the affidavit, the registration number of the writ petition is indicated as WP(C) No.3553/2009 , which is the number of the instant writ petition also, but the Registry ought to have made necessary verification instead of placing the same only by taking n ote of the writ petition number. Registry may do the needful in this regard. The claim of the petitioner involved in the instant case is for consider ation of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father Hasmot Ali on 16.8.2006, while in service. According to the petitio ner, his late father Hasmot Ali died in harness while was serving as Driver in t he office of the Respondent No.5. Now, the claim of the petitioner is to conside r his case as per the prevalent scheme within the prescribed quota for appointme nt on compassionate ground. Necessary parameters and yardsticks, required to be followed in the matter of compassionate appointment have been laid down in Achy ut Ranjan Das v. State of Assam & Ors reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674 followed by F aziron Nessa v. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 340. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the petitione r, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the respondents may examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines laid down in the said two decisions and as per the scheme for compassionate appointment. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents may verif y as to whether there is any other claimant in the family of the petitioner. Th is particular observation is made in view of the fact that in another writ petit ion being WP(C) No.3450/2009, although the claim of the petitioner in the writ p etition is that the late father of the petitioner had left behind his only wife, son (the petitioner) and one daughter, but as per the disclosure made in the af fidavit-in-opposition, the deceased left behind two wives, four daughters and t he son (the petitioner). The writ petition is disposed of.