1. The petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to give him compassionate appointment on any suitable post.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner made application dated 21.6.2010 for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father died in harness on 23.5.2010 and as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner became entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has averred that though the concerned authority of respondent No.1 recommended for considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically, however, nothing was done till the petition was filed.

3. It appears that pending the petition, decision dated 30.9.2013 was taken, whereunder the petitioner is held entitled for lumpsum compensation of Rs.4 lacs under the new policy dated 5.7.2011 introduced by the Government. The petitioner, therefore, was permitted to amend the petition so as to challenge the above-said decision/ order dated 30.9.2013. The petitioner also prayed to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment instead of lumpsum compensation.

4. I have heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Naik for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik for respondent No.3.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas submitted that the petitioner made application prior to introduction of the policy dated 5.7.2011 and therefore, the petitioner shall not be governed by the said policy and the petitioner having become eligible to get compassionate appointment, his application was required to be dealt with under the policy existed prior to the policy dated 5.7.2011. Ms. Vyas submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner that his application remained unattended though there was recommendation by the concerned authority of respondent Nos.1 and 2. She thus urged to quash and set aside the order for grant of compensation and to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the policy existed prior to 5.7.2011.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Naik and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Yagnik on the other hand submitted that since the application of the petitioner was not decided, it was treated as pending application and as per the policy dated 5.7.2011, all applications for compassionate appointment pending on the date of introduction of the Government Resolution dated 5.,7.2011 are required to be dealt with under the new policy and as per the new policy, it is decided to give lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.

7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what is not in dispute is that the application dated 21.6.2010 made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment remained undecided till the policy dated 5.7.2011 was introduced by the State Government. As per the policy dated 5.7.2011, Government has decided to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and as per Clause (5) of the policy, all pending applications are to be decided and disposed of under the new policy of the Government.

8. In consonance with the new policy, order dated 30.9.2013 is passed, as per which the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.4 lacs. In above such view of the matter, the respondents cannot be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

9. Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1270 of 2010, vide judgment dated 9.10.2014, has held and observed in para 7 to 12 as under:-

“7. We find that even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the application of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the policy prevailing at the time when such application was made, and on the basis of the judgment in Satyendrakumar Parbatsinh Zala (supra), then also, at the best, the learned Single Judge could have directed the concer