High Court · 2010

5. As per direction of Hon’ble High Court dtd. The 3rd Aug/2006 in W.P.(C) No. 3875 of 2005 and 162 other connected cases, guidelines have already been iss ued to follow the process and examination of compassionate appointment cases by all Deptts. And authorities vide Notification No. ABP.50/2006/58 dtd. 11.10.2006 , which should be strictly adhered to. All cases of compassionate appointment of a District should be routed th 6. rough the District Level Committee to the respective Administrative Deptts. For proper verification so that the Administrative Deptts. Can prepare a statement o f eligible candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground with the approval of State Level Committee.

7. All vacancies available against the 5% quota on compassionate appointmen t are to be filled up within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of vacancies. If the applications of eligible candidates remain pending and can not be considered due to want of vacancy or otherwise for a period of two years from the date of making such application, all msuch applications will require no further consideration and must be understood to have spent their force.

8. However, if no candidate is available for appointment under compassionat e scheme, then the posts may be filled up in the usual manner as per provision o f Rules.

9. All the Administrative Deptts /Directorates/ Appointing authorities shou ld examine the cases including the proposal received from the District Level Com mittee with their recommendation as indicated in this Department’s Notification mentioned at para-5 above before placing the same in the State Level Committee b y them.

10. ) Department (cid:29). In case of any confusion, power of interpretation lies with Personnel (B

8. In terms of the guideline No.1, applications for appointment under the s cheme is to be submitted in the prescribed format within a period of 3 (three) m onths from the date of death of the Govt. servant. Further, as per guideline No. 4, the approval of Finance (SIU) Department will not be necessary when there is clear sanctioned vacancy to consider the proposal. However, such dispensation of requirement of approval of the Finance Department has been done away with by Of fice Memorandum dated 1.10.2009 which reads as follows :- (cid:28)GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (PERSONNEL-B) DISPUR :: GUWAHATI. No. ABP.357/80/Vol.I/314 Dated, Dispur, the 1st October,2009. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject : son, daughter or a Government Servant. Revised guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground of a A revised guidelines have been issued vide O.M. NO. ABP.357/80/Vol.I/303 Dated 2 -3-2009 for appointment on compassionate ground to the son & daughter of a Gover nment Servant who dies in harness. Para 4 of the Office Memorandum stipulates th at since compassionate appointment is made in relaxation of prescribed procedure of recruitment, as such approval of Finance (SIU) Department will not be necess ary when there is a clear sanctioned vacancy to consider the proposal subject to the condition that the vacant post against which appointment on compassionate g round is to be made has been retained upto date / retained permanently. On further consideration it has been decided to amend Para 4 of that Office Memo randum which be read as below : (cid:28)Since compassionate appointees cannot be differentiated with that of other fres h appointees who are recruited as per provisions of rules & procedures, as such mandatory requirement of obtaining approval / appraisal No. of Finance (SIU) Dep artment before making appointment on compassionate ground will be required for r elease of Salary by the concerned Treasury Officer to avoid possible irregularit ies, like fraudulent drawal of salaries making regular appointments etc (cid:29). All ot her conditions will remain same. Sd/- Rajiv Bora Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department (cid:29).

9. From the materials on record and as submitted by Mr. M.R. Pathak, learne d Standing Counsel, Education Department, some of the pending cases have been re jected by the department applying the guideline No.1 of OM dated 2.3.2009, which stipulates submission of application for compassionate appointment within three months from the date of death of the Govt. employee. Learned counsel for the p etitioners have taken objection to the application of guideline No.1 even in the pending cases. Objections have also been raised to the restriction imposed limi ting the time limit of 3 (three) months for submission of application. While it is true that the various schemes for compassionate appointment 10. is to provide immediate financial assistance to the members of the family whose sole bread earner dies in harness and thus there is need for immediate submissi on of application for compassionate appointment as a measure for such considerat ion, but limiting the same only to the extent of 3 (three) months and that too w ithout any clause for relaxation of such time limit, may cause hardship to many deserving cases.

11. In the parent 1983 scheme, under Clause-7, it has been laid down that if several years have passed after the death of the government servant, it would a ppear on the face of it that the family has managed to support and has some mean s of assistance and thus in such a case, compassionate appointment will not ordi narily be justified. However, no time limit has been fixed for submission of app lication. In a given case, it may not be possible for the bereaved family member s to submit application for compassionate appointment within the stipulated peri od of three months and in absence of any clause for relaxation of such time limi t, the case of a deserving family will automatically stands rejected. Within suc h short span of three months, it may not be possible for the family to assess as to whether it could survive even without the assistance of a compassionate appo intment.

12. Immediately after the death of the sole bread earner, the family members are forced to engage themselves to observe official formalities towards submiss ion of pension papers, documents relating to final settlement dues, assess the assets and liabilities of the bread earner etc. Such formalities coupled with th e bereavement naturally take time. By the time, the family overcomes the tight s ituation, in which it finds itself, much time is consumed.

13. In many cases, the sole bread earner serves elsewhere leaving behind his family members in rural areas. Such family members, after the death of the sole bread earner are required to visit the office to collect informations, document s pertaining to his or her service particulars towards claiming final settlement dues. The lethargy with which the files relating to final settlement dues for f inal payment of the same move, is known to all. Further, the State represents co llective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the Officers/ aut horities at a slow pace and the encumbered process of pushing the files from tab le to table consumes considerable time causing delay. All these factors aad ins ult to the injury and bring un-told woes and miseries to the bereaved family. In such a situation, it will be too much to expect the family to apply for compass ionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of death of the sole bread earner.

14. I have consulted the various schemes of compassionate appointment in whi ch no such time limit of 3 (three) months has been fixed. Even in the various Ap ex Court decisions, while emphasising that the very concept of compassionate app ointments loses its force after several years of death of the sole bread earner, it has not been emphasised that application for compassionate appointment must be submitted within a time limit.

15. As per the aforesaid scheme of 2.3.2009, the application for compassiona te appointment must be submitted within three months from the date of death of t he govt. servant, failing which such applications will not be considered. Consid ering the matter in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that such a cla use is opposed to the very concept of the scheme for compassionate appointment. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that a time limit of o ne year for submission of applications for compassionate appointment from the da te of death of the sole bread earner will be the appropriate time limit. Accordi ngly, Clause-I of the OM dated 2.3.2009 shall stand modified to that extent.

16. This now leads us to the question as to whether the pending cases and / or the cases in respect of which the applications were filed prior to the date o f issuance of the OM dated 2.3.2009, should be considered applying the guideline No.I. The OM dated 2.3.2009 does not have any retrospective application and thu s the guideline No.I cannot be applied to the pending cases and the said cases w ill have to be considered without taking into account the said OM dated 2.3.2009 but will have to be considered as per the prevalent scheme coupled with the gui delines issued in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). If any application has been rejecte d applying the Guideline No. I of the OM dated 2.3.2009, those applications will have to be considered afresh in terms of this judgement and order.

17. In the above context, the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of In dia Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 may be referred to. In the said decision, interfering with the decision of the High Court towards consideration of the case of the respondent on the basis of the scheme prevailing in 2005, wh ile deciding application of the deceased of the respondent filed in 2000, held t hat the matter should be decided within the parameter of the scheme prevailing w hen the application for compassionate appointment was filed and not as prevailin g on the date of decision of the court.

18. A submission was made that in terms of OM dated 2.3.2009, no compassiona te appointment can be made to the post of Assistant Teachers, although in the sa me pay scale like that of LDA, upto which level appointment on compassionate gro und can be considered but the learned counsel for the petitioners by producing t he OM dated 17.2.2000, issued by the Govt. of Assam in the same department i.e. the Department of Personnel, contended that the submissions so made is mis-place d. As per the said OM dated 17.2.2000, the benefit of compassionate appointment shall also be extended to the eligible family members of the deceased teachers w ho dies in harness, for appointment to the post of Teacher in ME/MV/MEM/LP/Junio r Basic Secondary School. For a ready reference, the OM dated 17.2.2000 is quote d below :- (cid:28)GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL :: PERSONNEL(B) DISPUR ::: GUWAHATI No. ABP.357/80/107 Dated Dispur,the 17th Feb/2000. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject : SIONATE GROUND TO THE ELIGIBLE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DECEASED TEACHERS. EXTENSION OF THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPAS In partial modification of this Department’s O.M. No. ABP.357/80/pt/79 dtd. 8.4. 96 read with the provision of original O.M. No. ABP.357/80/137 dtd. 9.9.83, the undersigned is directed to say that the State Government, after careful consider ation of all aspects in the matter, have decided that henceforth the benefit of the compassionate appointment shall be extended to the eligible family members o f the deceased teacher who dies in harness for appointment to a post of teacher in a ME/MV/MEM/LP/Junior Basic Secondary School subject to norms and procedure a nd qualifications as specified by the Department of Education (Secondary and Ele mentary). Sd/- Illegible (B. K. Gohain ) Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Personnel (B) Department. (cid:29)

19. Coupled with the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought on record the order dated 11.6.2009 issued by the Director of Elementar y Education, Assam, by which as many as 15 appointments have been made to the po st of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary and Lower Primary Schools on compassion ate ground. Thus, it cannot be said that there cannot be any compassionate appoi ntment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the aforementioned Schools. It is her eby clarified that the appointment on compassionate ground in a Class-III / Clas s-IV post, not above the level of LDA shall also include the post of Assistant T eacher in ME/MV/MEM/LP/Junior Basic Secondary Schools.

20. As regards the grievance of the petitioners that in cases pending prior to Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), applying the Principle No. X of the said judgement , many such cases have been rejected. Suffice is to say that such grievance has been taken case of in the case of Ajit Pator (supra). If any such pending cases are still left to be considered, the department / authorities shall consider the said cases in terms of the Principle No. I laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supr a), without any further delay and shall give finality to the same, whatever may be the consequences thereof.

21. So far as the other cases not covered by Principle No. I are concerned, the said cases shall be considered strictly in terms of parameters and yardstick s laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra).

22. An argument was advanced that the cases are required to be considered on the basis of seniority of cases. Examples were shown that the authorities / dep artments have considered the cases of subsequent years while the cases of earlie r years have been left out. Needless to say that compassionate appointment is no t a source of recruitment, so as to contend that such appointments will have to be made on the basis of seniority of cases. Such appointments are made on need b asis upon evaluation of comparative needs. This aspect of the matter has also be en taken note of in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) vide Principle No. V. Thus, it can not be claimed that since ones claim is prior in time than another, he or she wi ll get preference over the latter applicant. Referring to certain cases in which the claim for compassionate appointm 23. ent has been rejected, it was argued that no reasons having been assigned, it is not discernible as to on what grounds, such cases have been rejected. This aspe ct of the matter has also been taken note of in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra) (refer para 8). In this connection, the particular observation is quoted below :- (cid:28)Who has a better right for appointment and whether a particular claim has been rightly rejected can be gone into by the Court only if there is a reasoned order setting out the relevant facts, a practice that seems to have become a thing of the past. However, as appointment of one person in preference to another will n ot have the effect of abrogating the claim of the candidate passed over in view of the present Direction No.I which would now require the State to consider all pending claims afresh all the contentious questions raised need not be gone into . In so far as claims which have been approved by the State Government but appoi ntment orders have not been forthcoming, the direction to re-examine all such cl aims and, thereafter, issue appointments orders in accordance with the laid down principles, will adequately take care of all such grievances (cid:29).

24. In view of the above, in those cases in which the claim for compassionat e appointment has been rejected but no reasons have been assigned, the authoriti es / departments are directed to assign reasons for such rejection. It was submi tted that although the order of rejection itself may not have assigned reasons b ut the relevant files might contain the reasons. If that be the case, the said r easons may be communicated to the aggrieved candidates.

25. As regards the pending cases prior to issuance of the direction / guidel ines in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), the authorities / departments must comply wit h the directions contained in Principle No.I and cannot delay the same for indef inite period. As per the said direction, all such pending cases were required to be considered within four months. If for any reason, the said time limit has no t been able to be adhered to, the respondents shall do the needful in this regar d, so as to dispose of all such pending cases on or before 30th September, 2010.

26. So far as the other pending cases are concerned, the respondents shall p ass appropriate reasoned orders upon consideration of all the said cases as per the guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). The guidelines issued in the said case being exhaustive, no further guidelines are required to be issued and in fact, the State Government having accepted the said guidelines, to be the guiding factors towards determination of the cases for compassionate appointmen t, it must adhere to the same towards consideration of such cases.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument submit ted that the prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected, once it is approved by the DLC. Argument was also advanced that the principles relating to compassionate appointment are not adhered to while considering the cases for su ch appointment and that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy towa rds making such appointment. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, Educat ion, submitted that the various parameters and yardsticks which are applicable i n the matter of compassionate appointment have been strictly followed towards ac cepting and rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.

28. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, the Apex Court considering the factors necessary for being taken into account b efore offering compassionate appointment, held that mere death of an employee do es not entitle 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. It was also obser ved that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma reported in AIR 1994 29. SC 845 regarding the assertion made by the respondents in reference to another c ase that although both the cases were identical, the authority while considering the other case, did not consider his case, the Apex Court observed thus :- (cid:28)Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that under the instru ctions in question the respondent is not entitled to a higher post of his choic e merely because he fulfils the requisite eligibility qualifications. Learned c ounsel for the respondent has attempted to defend his case by citing the illustr ation to another applicant - Rajiv Dwivedi - who, according to him, was appointe d in similar circumstances as APP-Grade II. The facts relating to Rajiv Dwivedi are not on record and it is the mere assertion of the respondent that the circum stances are identical. Even assuming that Rajiv Dwivedi’s case was similar to th at of the respondent, the applicant has no right to any particular post of his c hoice, he can only claim to be considered for that post. It would ultimately be for the authority to decide if some common principle was involved in the two cas es. If a mistake was committed in an earlier case, that cannot be a ground for d irecting the State to perpetuate the error for all times to come. Learned counse l for the respondent has not been able to show before us any rule or Government instructions under which the respondent can claim the post APP-Grade II. (cid:29)

30. In Director of Education (Secondary) Vs. Pushpendra Kumar reported in 19 98(5) SCC 192, the Apex Court considering the purpose of compassionate appointme nt, held that it has to be ensured that a provision for grant of compassionate a ppointment does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons, who are el igible for appointment against the posts which would have been available to them , but for the provision for compassionate appointment, else that would be violat ive of the equality clause.

31. In Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Hakim Singh reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, the Apex Court upholding the rejection of claim for compassionate appoin tment made after a long lapse of time, held that rejection of request made after 14 years was justified. In that case, the claim was made when the deceased empl oyee’s son attained majority.

32. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192, the Apex Court held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the claimant becomes a major, after a number of years. The very basis of c ompassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. In tha t case, the petitioner was 10 years old when his mother died, while she was work ing as an Excise Constable. The date on which the application for compassionate appointment was made by her son, he was not eligible for appointment. Similar vi ew has been expressed in Jagdish Prashad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) SCC 301.

33. In Auditor General of India Vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao reported in 1994 (1) SCC 192, the Apex Court interpreting the term (cid:28)near relative (cid:29) as laid down in the particular scheme, held that the appointment on ground of descent clearly violates article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. However, it was made clear that if the appointments are confined to the son / daughter or widow of the dec eased government employee who died in harness and who needs immediate appointmen t on account of immediate need of assistance in the event of their being no othe r earning member in the family to support the loss of income from the bread-winn er to relief economic distress of the member of the family, it is un-exceptionab le. It was observed that in other cases, it cannot be a rule to take advantage o f the scheme to appoint the persons on the ground of compassion. In I.G. (Karmik) and others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi reported in (2007 34. ) 6 SCC 162, the Apex Court held that compassionate appointment must be in conso nance with the constitutional scheme of equality enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Interfering with the direction issued by the High Court eve n after observing \A word of caution, is put on record that the right to claim a ppointment under the die in harness rules on compassionate ground can be neither used as a devise to seek employment nor it is a new mode of recruitment in Gove rnment service nor can be treated as a channel of promotion to higher post. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of facts of the present case (cid:29), obser ved as follows :- (cid:28)An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of employees of the State i s governed by the rules framed under a statute or the proviso appended to Articl e 309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the State is o bligated to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated u nder Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefor e, must conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court, however, while la ying emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the c hildren or other relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated while rendering services in the police department. See Yogender Pal Singh and Ot hers v. Union of India and Others [A.I.R. 1987 SC 1015]. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutiona l scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassio nate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by t he family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is mad e on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it see ks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion (cid:29).

35. In National Institute of Technology Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh reported in (2 007) 2 SCC 481, the Apex Court while emphasising that all public appointments mu st be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India and that an exc eption is curved out in the matter of compassionate appointment, observed thus : - (cid:28)All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constituti on of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where appointments ar e to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a view to see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No ap pointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other t han those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out. Other family memb ers of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder (cid:29).

36. In SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560, the Apex Co urt emphasising that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed a s a matter of right and that it is a concession, not a right, the Apex Court obs erved thus :- (cid:28)This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on comp assionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter if right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down thereof viz., that the death of the sole b read earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a min imum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the post which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee in an excepti on to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right.

37. In General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Anju Jain reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475, the Apex Court while upholding the particular clause in the policy o f compassionate appointment under which appointment could be denied to dependant s of an employee (cid:28)whose service record was blemished on account of disciplinary action having been taken against him (cid:29) and reversing the decision of the High Cou rt, holding that past misconduct of an employee was not a relevant consideration for the purpose of compassionate appointment of the dependant of the deceased e mployee observed thus :- (cid:28)We are of the view that both the Courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner. Appointment on compassionate ground is n ever considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment is violative of r ule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Co nstitution. As per settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or semi-Government or in public office, cases of all eligible candidates must b e considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally, therefore, Stat e or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office, cannot i gnore such mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances , appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employee is cons idered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee may not starve. Th e primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden finan cial crisis occurring due to death of sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. In our opinion, therefore, if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee and the charges levelled against su ch employee are proved and he is punished, it is indeed a relevant consideration for not extending the benefit to dependent of such empl oyee on the ground that he was punished. To us, it can not be said that it is a case of double jeopardy or a dual punishment. Compassionate appointment is really a concession in favour of dependents of deceased employee. If during his carrier, he had committed illegalities and the misconduct is proved and he is punished, obviously his dependents cannot claim right to the employment. With respect, the learned Single Judge was wholly wrong in observing that such an action would be violative of pr inciples of natural justice. To us, the observation of the learned Single Judge that \no past acts of miscond uct of the employee who dies in harness can be taken into account while consider ing the case of a family member for employment on com passionate ground\ is not in consonance with law. Past conduct of an employee is undoubtedly an important consideration. We are also of the view that the State Bank was right in rejecting the prayer of the wife of the deceased employee vide its letter dated January,29, 2001 observing therein that \unblemished service record is implicit\.

38. In State of Haryana Vs. Rani Devi reported in (1994) 5 SC 308, interpret ing the term (cid:28)employee (cid:29) occurring in the particular scheme for compassionate app ointment, the Apex Court held that the said term does not include a casual or pu rely adhoc employee or apprentice and hence claim of dependents of such deceased employees for compassionate appointment is not sustainable. Similar view has be en expressed in State of Manipur Vs. Thingujam Borjen Meetei reported in (1996) 9 SCC 29. It has been held that the particular die in harness scheme will not be applicable in respect of dependents of a work-charged employee irrespective of confirmation. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appoi 39. ntment to public service should be on merits and, therefore, through open invita tion. In Hakim Singh (supra), it was observed thus :- (cid:28)The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contin gencies. As per one such exception belief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents in a vacancy. The obj ect is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the ultimately death of its sole bread-winner. This Court has observed t ime and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not b e taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. (cid:29) The departmental authorities while considering the cases for compassiona 40. te appointment shall do so keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court. To sum up, the following directions are made :- i) While considering the cases for compassionate appointment, the authority shall strictly adhere to the principles / guidelines laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra). As per the Principle No.I in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), the pending case ii) s should be considered and disposed of latest by 30th September, 2010. The time limit of 3 (three) months for submission of application from th iii) e date of death of the government employee shall stand extended to 12 (twelve) m onths. iv) The OM dated 2.3.2009 had no retrospective application and all pending a pplications required to be considered other than the Principle No.I laid down in Achyut Ranjan Das (Supra), shall be so considered as per the guidelines / princ iples laid down in the said case alongwith the prevalent scheme. v) As emphasised in the said case, while rejecting the claim for compassion ate appointment, reasons thereof must be assigned. The cases in which no reasons has been assigned towards rejection, the authority will assign reasons to the a pplicants. vi) The cases for compassionate appointment shall be considered on need basi s upon comparative assessment of various applications and not applying the test of seniority of claims. It may so happen that a claim latter in point of time is more deserving than a claim prior in point of time. It is hereby once again clarified that Principle No. X laid down in Achy vii) ut Ranjan Das (Supra) shall not be applicable to the cases under Principle No.I, but will be applicable in all other cases, meaning thereby, that if application s are pending for a period of two years from the date of making the application but could not be considered for want of vacancies, all such applications will re quire no further consideration and must be understood that they have spent their force. viii) All the pending cases before the DLC or the SLC must be expedited and sh all be given finality as expeditiously as possible, leaving no scope for any res entment. On ground of delay whatever may be the outcome of consideration of the cases, same shall be communicated to the applicants concerned.

41. With the above directions and observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed off. The respondents are directed to act accordingly. There shall be n o order as to costs.