Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the Learned Advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers: “Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be further pleased to: (A) Admit this petition. (B) Quash and set aside order dated 25.8.2009 Annexure B to this petition by declaring it as unjust, improper and contrary to the spirit of scheme of compassionate appointment with a further direction to the respondents to consider case of petitioner for compassionate appointment as per his application dated 30.3.2010 and offer him suitable appointment in Class IV as expeditiously as possible. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct respondents to decide pending application of petitioner dated 30.3.2010 in interest of justice. (D) Grant such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as driver, expired in harness on 22.11.2008. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor. Initially, the petitioner made an application on 16.1.2009, for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application has been rejected by order dated 25.8.2009, passed by Respondent No. 3 on the ground that the age of the petitioner was below the minimum age limit for appointment. The date of birth of the petitioner being 29.8.1991, he attained the age of majority on 29.8.2009. The petitioner, once again, made application dated 30.3.2010, for grant of compassionate appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application has not been considered or responded to, till date. 4. Mr. Samir B. Bundela, Learned Advocate for Mr. Hasit H. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was a minor when he made the earlier application, he has made a second application on 30.3.2010, after attaining the age of majority. 4. Mr. Samir B. Bundela, Learned Advocate for Mr. Hasit H. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was a minor when he made the earlier application, he has made a second application on 30.3.2010, after attaining the age of majority. As such the said application has been made within a period of two years from attaining majority, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil vs. Additional Director General of Police and Anr., 2007 (3) GLH 313 , whereby, this Court has interpreted policy dated 10.03.2000 and has held that the said policy does not provide that if the dependent was minor at the time of the death of his father, his case cannot be considered for such appointment. It is further submitted that in the said judgment, it has been laid down that if the dependent is a minor at the time of death of an employee, the application can be made by the dependent within two years from attaining the age of majority. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has attained the age of majority on 29.8.2009, and as the application has been made on 30.3.2010, the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, order dated 27.08.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 403 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 603 of 2004, whereby, appeal preferred against the above-mentioned decision of the learned Single Judge in Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil vs. Additional Director General of Police and Anr. (Supra) [being Special Civil Application No. 603 of 2004] has been dismissed in-limine. 5. I have heard Mr. Samir B. Bundela, Learned Advocate for Mr. Hasit H. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader and perused the averments made in the petition and material on record. 6. (Supra) [being Special Civil Application No. 603 of 2004] has been dismissed in-limine. 5. I have heard Mr. Samir B. Bundela, Learned Advocate for Mr. Hasit H. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader and perused the averments made in the petition and material on record. 6. Though it has been stated in the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 that the earlier application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he had not attained the age of majority when the same was made, the said order would not now be relevant, as the petitioner has made an application on 30.3.2010, that is, within two years of attaining the age of 18 years. As per the principles of law enunciated in the above-mentioned judgment, the second application of the petitioner dated 30.3.2010, deserves to be considered by the respondents. 7. In Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil vs. Additional Director General of Police and Anr. (Supra), the Court has held as under: “8. Therefore, in view of these provisions of item No. 8 Clause (B) referred to above, in case if the member of the dependent family is minor at the time of death of concerned Government employee, then, it is necessary for the authority to wait till such minor member of dependent family becomes major and in view of that rejection of application on the ground that the petitioner was not major at the time of death of his father is not sustainable as per the provisions of the policy dated 10.3.2000. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the case of the petitioner is not covered by policy dated 10.3.2000. Clarification made by the State Government in 2000 itself is providing that if the member of the dependent family was minor at the time of death of his father or mother or as the case may be, then, it is necessary for such dependent to make such application within the period of two years from the date on which he attains majority. In this case, respondents have not pointed out before this Court that such application was made by the petitioner beyond two years from the date of his attaining the age of majority. In this case, respondents have not pointed out before this Court that such application was made by the petitioner beyond two years from the date of his attaining the age of majority. In view of the aforesaid provisions of item 8 Clause (B) of the policy dated 10.3.2000, respondents are not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he had not become major at the time of death of his father but the respondents shall have to consider the case of such dependent who become major at the relevant time when his application was being considered....” 8. The resultant effect of the order dated 27.08.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 403 of 2009 would be that the judgment in Ajitsinh Chandrasinh Gohil vs. Additional Director General of Police and Anr. (Supra) has attained finality and the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the principles laid down therein, as the petitioner has made the application well within a period of two years after attaining majority. 9. Accordingly, the petition is partly-allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the principles of law laid down in the above-mentioned judgment. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Writ of this Court. 10. Rule is made absolute, to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. P P P P P