JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner’s father, while working as Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) in Government Primary School, Dhano-Raina, Tehsil Theog, Deha Block, District Shimla, died on 18.10.1990. Petitioner’s mother submitted an application to the respondent-department on 03.05.1991 for considering the case of her eldest son for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature immediately after he attained the age of majority by seeking appointment on compassionate basis. The same was rejected by the respondents on 01.12.1997. Case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his father was working on ad hoc basis. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 281 of 1998 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was rejected by the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches on 10.01.2002. Petitioner sought review of the judgment, dated 10.01.2002. The same was transferred to this Court and was assigned C. Review (T) No. 122 of 2008. The review petition was allowed by this Court on 31st August, 2012 and the judgment, dated 10.01.2002, passed in O.A. No. 281 of 1998 was recalled. 2. The petitioner has lost his father on 18.10.1990. He was working as J.B.T. Teacher on ad hoc basis. Since the petitioner’s father has died on 18.10.1990, his case was required to be considered as per memorandum, dated 18.01.1990. 3. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner has been illegally rejected by the respondent-department on 01.012.1997. She further contended that as per memorandum, dated 18.01.1990, there was no distinction between regular or ad hoc employee, as far as appointment on compassionate basis is concerned. She further contended that the petitioner’s application was within limitation, since the same was filed within a period of three years after the petitioner attained the age of majority. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the letter, dated 01.12.1997. According to him, the petition is highly belated and the same can not be considered at this belated stage. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Since the petitioner has lost his father on 18.10.1990, his case was required to be considered as per office memorandum, dated 18.01.1990. According to him, the petition is highly belated and the same can not be considered at this belated stage. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Since the petitioner has lost his father on 18.10.1990, his case was required to be considered as per office memorandum, dated 18.01.1990. A policy has been framed by the respondent-State to provide employment assistance to the dependants of Government servants, who died while in Government service leaving the family in indigent circumstances. As per paragraph No. (2) of Office Memorandum, dated 18.01.1990, the employment assistance on compassionate grounds is to be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, mother, brother and unmarried sister) of ; (a) a Govt. servant who dies while in service (including by suicide) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. There is no distinction between an ad hoc appointment or regular appointment as per clause (a) of paragraph No. 2 of the Scheme. What is visualized under this Clause is only the expression “Government servant”. The benefit of compassionate appointment has also been extended to a daily wage employee, who has put in five years of service with not less than 240 days in a year. The underlying principle of the policy is to help the family of a Government servant, who is in indigent circumstances after the loss of bread earner. 7. Petitioner’s father was appointed as J.B.T. teacher. His appointment has been made by the State Government. His disciplinary authority is also the State Government. His pay and allowances were paid by the State Government. He was holding a civil post under the State and was discharging his duties in the affairs of State. The manner, in which the petitioner’s father has to work, was also regulated by the State Government. The relationship of ‘Master and Servant’ existed between the State Government and the petitioner’s father. Thus, the petitioner’s father was a Government servant under the Scheme. 8. Now as far as the plea of delay is concerned, according to paragraph No. 8 of the Scheme, the son/daughter of the deceased Government employee can apply for compassionate appointment within three years of attaining the age of majority. Thus, the petitioner’s father was a Government servant under the Scheme. 8. Now as far as the plea of delay is concerned, according to paragraph No. 8 of the Scheme, the son/daughter of the deceased Government employee can apply for compassionate appointment within three years of attaining the age of majority. In this case, the petitioner submitted application for considering his case for appointment on compassionate basis immediately after he attained the age of majority. Thus, it cannot be said that the application submitted by the petitioner was barred by delay or laches. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner’s mother has also filed an affidavit on 03.05.1991, reserving the right of her son to get appointment on compassionate basis after attaining the age of majority. 9. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has also argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the latest policy and not as per office memorandum, dated 18.01.1990. The date of death is relevant for determining the case for compassionate appointment. 10. The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Krishna Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others 2012(4) SLR 481 (Pb. & Hry.) 481 has held that the date of death of an employee is an important factor to be taken into consideration and the policy applicable on the date of death needs to be invoked to provide immediate relief. The Full Bench has held as under: “…..In view of this clear enunciation of law we cannot but come to the conclusion that rules applicable on the date of death/incapacitation of an employee need to be followed. Neeless to observe it is upto the authority to consider the application without inordinate delay and take a decision thereon. In the eventuality application remains pending for considerable period and some other policy comes into operation, no fault can be found on the part of the employee. This appears to be the principle recognized by the apex court in its recent judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar’s case. As held therein, application for compassionate employment has to be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time as compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family. As held therein, application for compassionate employment has to be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time as compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis on account of death or invalidation of the bread winner of the family. We, thus, come to the conclusion that in case an application is made by the dependant belatedly or is considered after inordinate delay, basic requirement of meeting the immediate crisis becomes redundant. Since the objective of the policy is to rescue the family from sudden event plunging it into penury, consideration of application after number of years would be beyond the principles accepted by the apex court in its various decisions. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the exception to the general rule of employment as envisaged by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We answer the reference accordingly.” 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment pertaining to compassionate appointment rendered in Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors. JT 2012(6) SC 94 have held as under: “11. A conjoint reading of the Statutory Rules and para 19 of the Government Order extracted above would show that the compassionate appointment scheme itself permits applications to be made within two years from the date of death of the Government servant. In the case of minors the permissible period for making applications is three years from the date the minor attains majority. It is not in dispute that the application for appointment as a Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher was made by the respondent on 7th February, 2005 i.e. within three years of his attaining majority. Such being the position under the terms of the scheme, the validity or wisdom whereof is not under challenge before us, it is manifest that the scheme not only permitted making of an application but when read in conjunction with Rule 9A entitled respondent No. 5 to seek such an appointment subject to his fulfilling other requirements stipulated in the scheme. It is nobody’s case that respondent No. 5 did not satisfy other conditions stipulated in the Government Order nor was his request for appointment as Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher rejected on any such ground. It is nobody’s case that respondent No. 5 did not satisfy other conditions stipulated in the Government Order nor was his request for appointment as Junior Grade Sanskrit Teacher rejected on any such ground. That being so, the High Court was justified in holding that the prayer for appointment made to respondent No. 5 should have been allowed.” In this case also, the compassionate appointment scheme itself permitted applications to be made within two years from the death of the government servant and in case of minors, the permissible period for making applications is three years from the date the minor attains the age of majority. 12. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Shri Anant Ram, Shastri, who was appointed on ad hoc basis, she was given employment on compassionate grounds on rd August, 1994 as Peon. She has also drawn the attention of the Court to certificate of Block Primary Education Officer, dated 28.11.1998, to substantiate that deceased Shri Anant Ram, Shastri was working on ad hoc basis in Government Primary School, Khaar (Deha Block), District Shimla. Thus, there cannot be an invidious discrimination. Since compassionate appointment has been offered to the widow of Shri Anant Ram, Shashtri, who was working on ad hoc as Junior Basic Trained teacher, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered at par with her. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-A, dated 01.12.1997 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis as per the old policy, which was prevalent at the time of death of his father, as per his qualification and entitlement, within a period of six weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.