JUDGMENT : D.H. WAGHELA, J. 1. This group of appeals is preferred from common and similar oral orders dated 18.8.2011 of learned single Judge of this Court in SCA Nos. 11368 of 2011, 11744 to 11771 of 2011, 11121 of 2011 and 11732 to 11742 of 2011, whereby the appellants herein were directed to consider the applications for compassionate appointment of the original petitioners on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the relevant time, when the employee concerned had expired. Learned single Judge further directed to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the policy which was prevailing at the relevant time when the employee expired, within a period of three months. With such observations and directions, the petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. 2. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the impugned order was apparently made without reference to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 and the subsequent development which had taken place before the impugned order in the form of new Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which superseded the then existing scheme for giving compassionate appointment to members of dependent families of those Class-III and Class-IV employees who died while in service. Relying upon that resolution dated 05.07.2011, it was pointed out that not only that the existing scheme for compassionate appointment was abolished, but a provision was clearly made in the resolution itself for disposal of all the pending applications for compassionate appointment as per the new scheme. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India (supra), it was pointed out that the facts in the present set of cases were similar to the facts before the Supreme Court wherein the employee had died in October 2004, application for compassionate appointment was made in June 2005 and new scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in substitution of compassionate appointment had come into effect on 04.08.2005. Thus, during pendency of the application for compassionate appointment under the then subsisting scheme, the new scheme for lump sum payment was adopted and after consideration of the circumstances, the Court was pleased to make the following observations: “13. Thus, during pendency of the application for compassionate appointment under the then subsisting scheme, the new scheme for lump sum payment was adopted and after consideration of the circumstances, the Court was pleased to make the following observations: “13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.” It was, on that basis, submitted that the applications of the original petitioners could now be considered only under the new scheme embodied in the resolution dated 05.07.2011, the provisions of which were in fact more liberal in grant of benefit and did not contain conditions of eligibility and qualifications which would have been required to be fulfilled by the original petitioners for compassionate appointment under the old scheme. 3. Learned counsel Mr. M.B. Rana relied upon Division Bench judgment dated 11.5.2010 of this Court in L.P.A. No. 22 of 2010 and allied matters to submit that this Court had already taken a view that when applications for compassionate appointment were made and pending before the Government for several years, the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the scheme prevailing at the time of making the applications and subsequent development or change in the scheme could not be set up as a defence to defeat the right of the applicants which had accrued at least for consideration of the applications under the then prevailing scheme. Learned counsel also emphasised that that judgment of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court on 19.10.2010 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31057 of 2010. 4. The previous judgment dated 11.5.2010 of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 22 of 2010 etc. Learned counsel also emphasised that that judgment of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court on 19.10.2010 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31057 of 2010. 4. The previous judgment dated 11.5.2010 of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 22 of 2010 etc. clearly articulated the legal issue arising before it, in the following terms:- “.....Therefore, the sole issue, as aforesaid, is purely a legal issue as to where the subsequent changes in the policy or the changes in the requirement of minimum qualification could be applied in the cases of the original applicants.....” The factual backdrop against which that issue was framed was that almost invariably the authorities had just not considered the applications for compassionate appointment for years together and the original scheme for compassionate appointment was not abolished or substituted, but the qualifications and requirements required to be fulfilled by the applicants were so upgraded or revised that the applicants were ousted from even consideration of their cases after years of pendency of their applications. Such attitude or inaction on the part of the authorities were not even claimed to be justified or bona-fide. Those facts led the Court to the inference of discrimination and lack of bona-fide insofar as the applicants, whose applications were considered and granted under the erstwhile scheme, would have been appointed while the applicants before the Court were admittedly deprived of even consideration of their applications. While referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India (supra), the ratio, as aforesaid, was distinguished mainly on the aforesaid facts, insofar as, in the case before the Apex Court, the scheme for compassionate appointment was abolished altogether leaving no room for consideration of the applications, but with the clear stipulation in the new scheme that all the pending applications would be considered in terms of the new scheme and the brief period legitimately required for processing the original applications for compassionate appointment had not expired and before which the scheme was substituted. 5. The upshot of the above discussion of facts and law is that the ratio of the decision in State Bank of India (supra) would squarely apply in the present cases, rather than the previous judgment of Division Bench of this Court. 5. The upshot of the above discussion of facts and law is that the ratio of the decision in State Bank of India (supra) would squarely apply in the present cases, rather than the previous judgment of Division Bench of this Court. According to the factual data submitted by the respondents themselves, except one application dated 27.7.2001 of one of the respondents, all the other applications for compassionate appointment were made in the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. During pendency of those applications, resolution dated 05.07.2011 has been issued and the scheme for compassionate appointment is abolished and substituted by the scheme for payment of lump sum financial assistance. Therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India (supra), the relief to which the respondents would be legally entitled would be to avail the benefit of the new scheme under resolution dated 05.07.2011. Since learned Advocate General has made the statement that all the applications for compassionate appointment of the respondents, except one dated 27.7.2001, are pending and would be considered under the new scheme, no order in that regard is required to be made. Therefore, upon consideration of the aforesaid applications, the decision and the benefit due under the scheme to the applicants shall have to be conveyed or paid, as the case may be, within a period of three months of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. It was fairly conceded and it was obvious from the facts that the original applicant in SCA No. 11368 of 2011, respondent in LPA No. 526 of 2012, was in any case not entitled to any benefit even under the erstwhile scheme for compassionate appointment and the original petition itself was liable to be dismissed only on account of delay and laches. 7. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed, impugned orders dated 18.8.2011 in SCA Nos. 7. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed, impugned orders dated 18.8.2011 in SCA Nos. 11368 of 2011, 11744 to 11771 of 2011, 11121 of 2011 and 11732 to 11742 of 2011 are set aside, subject to the direction that the appellant shall consider the applications of the respondents, except the respondent in LPA No. 526 of 2012, for grant of benefit of resolution dated 05.07.2011 at Annexure-B to the appeal and pay the amount, as may be due under the said resolution, to the original applicants or such of the heirs of deceased employee who may be entitled thereto under the scheme, within a period of three months. Civil applications are disposed as not surviving. No costs. Appeal Allowed.