Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed to direct the respondents to consider petitioner No. 1 for appointment with respondent No. 3 Department on compassionate grounds or, in the alternative, direct the respondent-authorities to grant lump sum compensation to the petitioners in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, without insistence on producing a succession certificate.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

Shri Jaykaran Mandas Barot, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2, died in harness as "A" Grade Police Constable on 05.08.2009. Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, which was in force at the time, petitioner No. 1 applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 23.03.2010, the respondents instructed petitioner No. 1 to move an application in the prescribed form with relevant documents. On 06.04.2011, petitioner No. 1 was instructed by the respondents to undergo a medical check-up and produce a certificate in respect of his chest measurement. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 appeared for a physical check-up and submitted the, necessary certificate dated 11.04.2011. According to the petitioners, even though petitioner No. 1 is eligible even on merits, he was not given appointment on compassionate grounds. On 13.08.2012, the respondent-authorities instructed petitioner No. 2 to produce a succession certificate for the grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 1, in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. The proceedings regarding grant of a succession certificate are pending in the competent Court. However, the respondents are insisting upon the production of a succession certificate and are not considering the case of the petitioners for grant of lump sum compensation in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that petitioner No. 1, is eligible for the grant of compassionate appointment and/or lump sum compensation in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 is the son of the deceased employee and petitioner No. 2 is his wife. There is no doubt regarding this fact in the minds of respondent-authorities. Neither the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, nor the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, stipulate that the eligible dependents of a deceased employee are to produce a succession certificate for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds or lump sum compensation.

4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that a succession certificate would be required if the dispute is regarding pension. However, in the present case, the dispute is not regarding pension but the petitioners are only asking for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds or lump sum financial aid in view of the changed policy dated 05.07.2011, for which there is no requirement in the said policy that a succession certificate is necessary. Hence, it is submitted that the prayers made in the petition may be granted and the respondents may be directed to pay lump sum compensation to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

5. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while opposing the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the parents of the deceased employee and his brother have laid claim to the pension of the deceased. Moreover, the brot