JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. With respect to similarly situated petitioners, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13th May, 2011, in CWP(T) No.12055 of 2008, titled as Shyama Devi versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another (Annexure P-1), observed as under: “Petitioner’s father died in harness on 13.6.2003. Petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her father. Petitioner was called upon to supply the certificate of non-employment and income certificate before 28.7.2004. She submitted the same to the competent authority. However, as per supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Board, the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk on daily rated basis on 2.2.2006 and she has joined her duties on 14.2.2006. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner being a graduate should have been offered the post of Clerk on regular basis instead of daily rated basis. She has given the instance of one Ms. Anita Mahajan, who also has lost her father and has been appointed on regular basis as Clerk on compassionate basis. 3. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has not supplied all the documents at the time of submitting the application, her case has rightly been considered for appointment as Clerk on daily rated basis on 2.2.2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has lost her father on 13.6.2003. She has applied for compassionate appointment. She was only called upon to furnish income certificate and certificate of non-employment. She furnished the same. She has been offered appointment on compassionate basis as Clerk on daily rated basis, that too, on 2.2.2006. However, in the case of Ms. Anita Mahajan, she has been offered appointment on compassionate basis as Clerk on regular basis. She lost her father on 6.10.2003. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered before considering the case of Ms. Anita Mahajan. The justification for giving appointment to Ms. Anita Mahajan by the respondent-Board on regular basis is that she has furnished all the documents at the time of submitting the application on 17.12.2003. The justification given by the respondent-Board is not tenable. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered before considering the case of Ms. Anita Mahajan. The justification for giving appointment to Ms. Anita Mahajan by the respondent-Board on regular basis is that she has furnished all the documents at the time of submitting the application on 17.12.2003. The justification given by the respondent-Board is not tenable. It is reiterated that the respondent-Board was seized of petitioner’s matter for consideration of her candidature for appointment on compassionate basis after the death of her father on 13.6.2003. Petitioner is also a graduate. The appointment to her could not be denied merely on the ground that she could not produce few certificates at the time of submitting application seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner belongs to lower strata of the society and had to obtain the certificates from the competent authorities. It was time consuming process. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has supplied the certificates to the competent authority. 6. The Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered before considering the case of Ms. Anita Mahajan. She has lost her father on 13.6.2003 and Ms. Anita Mahajan has lost her father on 6.10.2003. 7. It is true that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, in the instant case, the respondent-Board has violated the policy framed by the State Government for making appointment on compassionate basis. This policy is required to be applied uniformly and in accordance with law. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per old policy and not as per Annexure R-II. The merits of the case of the petitioner were required to be seen by taking into consideration the death of her father on 13.6.2003 and not on the basis of Annexure R-II, dated 6.10.2005. Annexure R-II would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. 8. It is evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that the respondent-Board has delayed the consideration of the case of petitioner vis-à-vis Ms. Anita Mahajan, which has resulted in great miscarriage of justice to her. The petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-Board by giving her appointment as Clerk on daily rated basis. The petitioner was required to be given appointment as Clerk on regular basis at par with Ms. Anita Mahajan. The decision of the respondent-Board is arbitrary. Anita Mahajan, which has resulted in great miscarriage of justice to her. The petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-Board by giving her appointment as Clerk on daily rated basis. The petitioner was required to be given appointment as Clerk on regular basis at par with Ms. Anita Mahajan. The decision of the respondent-Board is arbitrary. There has been non-application of mind by the respondent-Board. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and-discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. In normal circumstances, this Court could have directed the respondent-Board to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk on regular basis. However, since Ms. Anita Mahajan has already been offered appointment as Clerk on regular basis, though she lost her father on 6.10.2003, there shall be a direction to the respondent-Board to offer appointment to the petitioner as Clerk on regular basis from due date, with all consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.” 2. This fact is not in dispute. However, it is stated that LPA against the said judgment has been preferred. But, it is also a matter of fact that operation of the said judgment has not been stayed and the ratio laid down therein is operative as of now. 3. Since the instant petitioners are similarly situated and their initial appointments are also in terms of the Policy for giving appointment on compassionate basis, the instant petitions need to be allowed. Directions issued in Shyama Devi (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant cases also. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. 4. All consequential actions shall positively be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Monetary benefits, due and admissible, if any, shall also be released to the petitioners within the aforesaid period, failing which, then thereafter, they shall be entitled to interest thereupon at the rate of 9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.