Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 18.12.2003, Annexure P-4 and 13.4.2006, Annexure P-8, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father Zile Singh, was declined. 2. Zile Singh, father of the petitioner, died on 29.10.2001. After the death of his father, the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground and vide communication dated 4.1.2002, the consent of the petitioner was sought for appointment by the respondents for Class-IV post under the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam). Vide the aforesaid communication, clarification of marital status of the petitioner was also sought. The petitioner gave his consent for appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground, but vide communication dated 18.12.2003, Annexure P-4, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined for the reason that the petitioner was more than 25 years of age at the time of death of his father and, therefore, under Rule 3 (e) (ii) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 2003 Rules), the petitioner was not eligible for appointment of compassionate ground. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Clauses (ii) & (iii) of Rule 3 (e) of the 2003 Rules were amended by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 17.12.2004, Annexure P-5, whereby the age limit was increased to 30 years. It is, thus, case of the petitioner that he was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under the amended Rules. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was reconsidered by the respondent-department in pursuance of the directions dated 27.1.2006, issued by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4723 of 2004 and vide order dated 13.4.2006, Annexure P-8, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been declined by the respondents for the reason that the case of the petitioner has already been decided in accordance with the age limit of 25 years and, therefore, it is not for the Nigam to selectively modify, change or adopt any part of the said Rules. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on 17.12.2004, i.e., the date when the Rules were amended, the petitioner was of approximately 29 years of age and was thus, eligible for appointment by way of compassionate appointment under the 2003 Rules. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground could not be declined for the reason that the case of the petitioner has been decided earlier. Once the High Court has ordered to decide the case of the petitioner afresh, the earlier order declining the claim of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration. 5. Such argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. The petitioner is born on 12.12.1975 and was, thus approximately 29 years of age when the Rules regarding age limit were amended on 17.12.2004. The respondents were bound to consider the eligibility of the petitioner under the amended Rules after the directions issued by this Court on 27.1.2006. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the case of the petitioner has already been considered, is illegal when the High Court has directed to decide the representation in the matter. 6. Subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2006, the 2003 Rules have been substituted with the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 2005 Rules) and further substituted with the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Rules), w.e.f. 1.8.2006. As per Rules 6 & 8 of 2006 Rules, an option is required to be given to the family members of the deceased employee to seek financial assistance either under 2003 Rules, 2005 Rules or under 2006 Rules. 7. In view of the said fact, we dispose of the present writ petition by setting aside the orders Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-8 and direct the respondents to seek option from the petitioner so as to consider the claim of the petitioner for financial assistance either under 2003 Rules, 2005 Rules or under 2006 Rules. The needful be done within a period of 2 months from today.