JUDGMENT : Prayerin the petition is to allow the petition and to quash order dated 15/02/2008 (Annexure P/1) passed byrespondent No.1 whereby the application filed by the petitioner forcompassionate appointment was rejected and to direct respondents to appoint thepetitioner on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat Hardayal Singh was the father of the petitionerand was working as Assistant teacher who died on 13/02/1998 when the petitioner was minor. It is submittedthat after attaining majority the petitioner moved an application on 10/12/2007for compassionate appointment which was dismissed vide Annexure P/1 on theground that as per clause 7.1 of the circular after attaining majority theapplication filed by the petitioner is barred by time. It is submitted thatimpugned order Annexure P/1 deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitsthat on 13/02/1998 petitioner was of 9 years and 7 months of age. It is submitted that afterattaining the age immediately the application was filed, therefore, it shouldnot have rejected on the ground that the application is barred by time. It issubmitted that petition be allowed and Annexure P/1 be quashed. Learnedcounsel for the respondents submits that as per clause 7.1 of the Circulardated 22/01/2007 , theapplication can be filed by a person who is dependent on the deceased if he hasbecome major within a period of seven years from the date of death. Learnedcounsel submits that since the petitioner attains the age of majority on 4/07/2006 which is after 7 years ofthe death of Hardayal Singh, therefore, theapplication has rightly been dismissed. It is submitted that petition bedismissed. Undisputely Hardayal Singh diedon 13/02/1998 and the dateof birth of the petitioner is 4/07/1988 .At the time of death of Hardayal Singh, the age ofthe petitioner Narendra Singh was 9 years and 7months. The application is filed on 10/12/2007 and the circular which is placed on record is dated 22/01/2007 while circular for compassionateappointment ought to have been taken into consideration which was in force atthe time of death of Hardayal which is dated 10/6/1994 . Clause 7.1 of the Circulardated reads as under:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Whileclause 5 of Circular dated 10/06/1994 which was in force at the time of death of Hardayal Singh reads as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Inthe matter of Ashok Kumar v/s Union of India [1999(II )MP LSR 228] in which father of the applicant died in 1988 and new policy wasintroduced in the year 1990. Division bench of Central Administrative TribunalBench at Jabalur has directed to consider the age ofcompassionate appointment as per policy which was in existence at the relevanttime. In the matter of Govind Prasad v/s R.G.Parsad [1994 SCC (1) 437] wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has heldthat the executive order of the Government cannot be made operative withretrospective effect .. Keepingin view the aforesaid position of law, this court is of the view that order Annexue P/1 cannot be allowed to sustain. Hence, petitionfiled by the petitioner is allowed and Anenxure P/1is quashed with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh applicationnarrating full facts about the status of each member of the family of thepetitioner and also the amount of family pension received on account of deathof Hardayal If such application is filed supportedwith documents and the relevant case law then after affording an opportunity ofhearing, the respondent No.1 shall decide the application afresh keeping inview the policy which was in existence at the time of death of Hardayal Singh. Needful be done within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of the application. Withthe aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Noorder as to costs.