A.S. Supehia, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 04.03.2010, wherein and whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that his family cannot be said to be in pitiable condition since it has received an amount of Rs. 5,33,028/- after the death of his father and a monthly amount of Rs. 3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. By subsequent amendment, the petitioner has stated that he is ready and willing to accept the lump-sum compensation as per the new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was serving as Bore Operator under Respondent no.2, and he died on 04.10.2006. The petitioner, being one of the dependents made an application on 20.10.2006. By the impugned communication dated 04.03.2010 the case of petitioner is rejected, considering the financial status of the family.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Kirit Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the income limit criteria will not apply in the case of the petitioner since vide Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 such criteria is removed.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Kirit Patel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (7) S.C.C. 412, for the proposition of law that the policy prevailing at the time of application made by the petitioner shall prevail and the case for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected only because the family of the deceased has some financial income.

5. Learned AGP, Mr. Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has submitted that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in pitiable condition as it has received an amount of Rs. 5,33,028/- after the death of his father and a monthly amount of Rs. 3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. He has also submitted that the case of the petitioner is also not covered under the new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 since the case of the petitioner is already rejected. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment dated 03.05.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2010. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2472 of 2010 reiterating the aforesaid view. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Appeal No.7702 of 2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2011.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the record of the case.

7. The facts established from the record are that the father of the petitioner died on 04.10.2006. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.10.2006. After the death of his father, his family has received an amount of Rs.5,33,028/- and a monthly amount of Rs.3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. It is pertinent to note that the State Government revised the earlier schemes of compassionate appointment and introduced a new scheme vide Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, in which financial criteria was removed. Thereafter, the scheme was further modified vide Government Resolution dated 07.09.2002 wherein the limitation period of making an application for compassionate appointment was extended from three months to six months. Subsequently, vide Circulars dated 29.03.2007 and 25.04.2008, the scheme was further modified, by which the criteria of qualifications to Class-III and Class-IV was prescribed. The income derived from pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund was also made one of the criteria in examining the case for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 abolished the scheme of compassionate appointment