WP(C) 1848/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mrs. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gogoi, learned S tanding Counsel for the respondents. 02. In challenge is the Office Order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Assam (Respondent No.2) rejecting the petit ioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment in terms of the Government policy t o that effect as embodied in the Office Memorandum No. ABP.357/80/137 dated 09.0 9.1983. 03. Briefly stated the petitioner’s pleaded case, is that following the demise of his father Late Ramashis Rai who had been serving as Night Chowkid ar at the Central Training Institute Building under the Directorate of Accounts, Assam, on 10.10.2000 the petitioner submitted a representation before the conce rned authority of the said establishment for appointment on compassionate ground as per the above policy. As his request remained unattended, without any rhyme or reason, he approached this Court with WP(C) No. 555/2001, which was disposed of on 04.04.2003 with a direction to the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Assa m to take all necessary steps to consider his case therefor and to inform him of the action taken. A time frame of three months was provided for that purpose. According to the petitioner, inspite of the above order, the concerned authoriti es did not take steps, for which he approached this Court with a petition for Co ntempt registered as Cont. Case No. 693/2006. 04. In the affidavit that was filed by the respondent therein, it was, inter alia, disclosed that the petitioner, inspite of the order of this Court had app lied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format only on 20.09.2006 a nd the same was duly processed thereafter and finally vide order dated 12.02.200 7, the request was rejected on the grounds enumerated therein. The answering re spondent, in particular asserted that the petitioner, Raja Rai had not been decl ared by his deceased father to be his dependent son while he was in service. 05. Mrs. Yadav, has emphatically urged that out of the heirs and leg al representatives of the deceased which includes with him three sons, one of hi s brothers had pre-deceased his father and that the other is living separately f rom the family. She has pleaded that the petitioner’s mother is also dead, and that the source of pension consequentially has dried up. On instructions she has submitted that the petitioner who is alias Rajnarayan Rai is the son on whom th e family with the remaining members thereof are presently dependent. 06. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn this Court attention, inter alia to a School Certificate endorsing that the petition er Raja Rai is the son of Late Ramashish Rai. While contending that his brother Sri Shiv Chandra Rai employed in the Forest Department of the State is living s eparately from his family and has recused himself from all responsibilities ther eof, Mrs. Yadav has urged, that in terms of the policy for compassionate appoint ment, the petitioner’s claim therefor in the above facts and circumstances is va lid, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in the int erest of justice. 07. Mr. Gogoi has urged that as compassionate appointment is not a m atter of right, considering the factors taken note of by the Respondent No.2, th e impugned order is unassailable and therefore the petition is liable to be reje cted. 08. The materials available on record do not, as such demonstrate in unequivocal terms that at or before the passing of the impugned order, the peti tioner had submitted any document before the concerned authority to brief him th at he is also known as Rajnarayan Rai. The supporting documents pertaining to t he said claim have been furnished in the instant proceeding. The learned counse l for the petitioner has urged that it was not possible to do so earlier as he ( Petitioner) was unaware of the impugned order, which for the first time was disc losed in the affidavit filed in the aforementioned contempt case. Though, it ha s not been denied before this Court that the pensionary benefits due to the dece ased, have since been released, having regard to the guidelines for compassionat e appointment, as is contained in the Office Memorandum No. ABP.357/80/137 recei pt thereof, per se does not disqualify a member of the family of the deceased fo r compassionate appointment thereunder. Existing appointment of any other family member of the deceased (Government servant) in service also does not appear to be an absolute impediment for the same purpose for others in deserving cases, if on a consideration of the earnings and liabilities of such earning member it is considered permissible. 09. A bare reading of the impugned order does not proclaim that the above two aspects had been taken note of by the Respondent No.2 before passing t he same. While no fault can be attached to the conclusion with regard to the id entity of the petitioner in absence of adequate materials before him, the reject ion of his request on the ground that his brother Shiv Narayan Rai is already in service, without examining as to whether, inspite thereof, having regard to his earnings and liabilities, the request for compassionate appointment can still b e entertained does not commend to this Court for acceptance. 10. True it is, that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is contingent on several factors as have been laid-down in the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.83 but the process, needless to say, has to b e essentially guided by the prescriptions enumerated in Achyut Ranjan Das vs. St ate of Assam and ors, (2006) 4 GLT 674. The consideration has to be inconformit y therewith, which in view of the above omissions appears not to have been done. 11. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside . The petitioner is left at liberty to submit an appropriate representation befo re the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Assam furnishing all necessary particu lars with regard to his identity as well as justifications in terms of the polic y for compassionate appointment for a fresh consideration therefor. If such a r epresentation is filed, the aforementioned authority would process the same in t erms of the said policy, as well as the guidelines laid-down by this Court in Ac hyut Ranjan Das (Supra) and take an appropriate decision. While issuing this dir ection, this Court is aware of the timeframe indicated in Achuyt Ranjan Das (Sup ra) for consideration of pending applications for compassionate appointment whic h finds reflection, as well in the notification No. ABP.357/80/Vol-I/303 dated 0 2.03.2009 (Annexure - Q of the Writ petition). 12. It is made clear that the directions issued have been necessitat ed by the facts and circumstances of the case and would not be construed in futu re to be a precedent. As the petitioner waits in expectation for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities would act with due expedition once a representation by him as above, is submitted. With th e above observations and directions the petition stands disposed. No costs.