JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. By way of present appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 28/07/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8517 of 1993, by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition. In the Special Civil Application it was prayed to set aside the order dated 09-10/05/1984 appointing the present appellant - original petitioner on compassionate ground with condition therein that she has to pass the Pre-service Training Examination and further to give the petitioner fourth chance of appearing in the Pre-service Training Examination. 2. Learned counsel Ms. Pandya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner being a widow, she was required to be given additional chance to clear the Pre-Service Training Examination, which in the present case, was not given. She submitted that, for the appointment of widow on compassionate ground, the Government has provided that over and above three regular chances, additional chances, in all six chances, are also required to be given. She also submitted that while the interim relief was operating in the main petition and consequently, the petitioner was continued in service, there were no complaints against her performance. She further submitted that the petitioner has completed 25 years of service and a very short period has remained towards her superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6278 of 1993, the fourth trial was permitted to the similarly situated employee. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present appeal may be allowed and the order impugned in this appeal may be quashed and set aside. 3. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ashar drew our attention to affidavit in reply filed by one Shri R. B. Baria, Under Secretary, General Administration Department at page 26, more particularly page 27 and vehemently submitted that the instructions issued under Annexure 'C' (communication dated 15/05/1989) to the main petition were issued under confidential letter and not by a circular or resolution or any order. Ashar drew our attention to affidavit in reply filed by one Shri R. B. Baria, Under Secretary, General Administration Department at page 26, more particularly page 27 and vehemently submitted that the instructions issued under Annexure 'C' (communication dated 15/05/1989) to the main petition were issued under confidential letter and not by a circular or resolution or any order. He has drawn our attention to the Office Order dated 21/08/1993 at Annexure 'D', related to the present appellant and submitted that while relieving her from service, she was specifically directed that additional grace chance can be availed by her sitting at home but the appellant had not availed nor complied with said direction and requested that present appeal may be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the prevailing policy dated 10/03/2000 and submitted that being a widow, the appellant was entitled to additional chance and a grace chance over and above three regular chances. However, without granting such additional chances, the appellant was terminated from service on the ground of non-passing of Pre-service Training Examination in three chances and the said action of the respondent was not bona-fide. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that though the appellant has heavily relied on Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000, more particularly, condition No. 15(b) of the same, whereby additional chances are required to be given to the widow appointed on compassionate ground but the said Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000 would not be applicable to the case on hand because as per condition No. 2 of the said Government Resolution, the said amended terms, conditions and instructions would be applicable in cases, wherein, the concerned employee had expired after the date of said Government Resolution i.e. 10/03/2000 and as far as other cases are concerned, they would be governed by the earlier instructions. 4.1 The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that as per standing instructions, if a widow could not pass the examination even in additional chances prior to termination, permission of General Administration Department was required. It appears that such permission was not taken in case of the appellant and she was deprived of availing additional chances. 4.1 The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that as per standing instructions, if a widow could not pass the examination even in additional chances prior to termination, permission of General Administration Department was required. It appears that such permission was not taken in case of the appellant and she was deprived of availing additional chances. Drawing our attention to the document Annexure 'B', dated 09-10/05/1984, which is the appointment order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is specifically mentioned in condition No. 3 that grant of additional chances will be considered on the occasion of termination that may arise on non-passing of examination. 4.2 Annexure 'C' is the Government Resolution dated 19/11/1997. It is stated therein that considering the difficulties faced by widow after death of her husband, the respondent took a policy decision that if a widow fails to pass the Pre-service Training Examination within the prescribed number of chances, then she shall be continued in service on condition that she will have to clear such examination in additional chances and only after passing of such examination, increments will be granted. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if it is presumed that as per condition No. 2 of the Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000, it is not at all applicable to the present case, then also her case would be governed by earlier instructions prevailing prior to 2000 and in that case also, the case of the appellant is covered by policy of the respondent introduced vide Government Resolution dated 19/11/1997 referred above. Referring the above-referred Government policy dated 19/11/1997, it is clear and it also provided that if a widow is appointed on compassionate ground and if she fails to pass the Pre-service Training Examination within the prescribed chances, then not only she should not be discharged from service upon her failure to pass such examination but she shall be permitted to appear in additional chance and the purpose behind taking this policy decision as enumerated/reflected therein has not been considered by the respondent - authorities while deciding such cases, is the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and there appears merit in it. 4.3 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that considering the above-referred policy of the State Government, one Chanduben Waghela, who was appointed on compassionate ground and was also terminated from the service on 29/06/1993 upon non-passing of Pre-service Training Examination within prescribed chances and had also approached this Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No. 6278 of 1993, and she was continued in service vide order dated 09/07/2008 of the General Administration Department. It is pertinent to note that petition filed by Chanduben Waghela was also dismissed by same learned Single Judge by order dated 20/03/2009. Thus, the State Government has treated two similarly situated compassionate appointees differently by issuing an order continuing Chanduben Waghela in service in view of policy of 1997 and discharged the appellant from service and such action of treating two similarly situated persons differently, is not permissible in the eye of law. 4.4 Then, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, at the time of deciding the issue whether an employee appointed on compassionate ground is also required to pass the Pre-service Training Examination/Post Training Examination under the rules, the Larger Bench of this Court has not altered/interfered with the relief granted to a widow, employee appointed on compassionate ground by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 19/11/1997. The relevant observations made by the Larger Bench (in the case of Sanjay D. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2009 (1) G.L.H. 746 ) are as follow: ".....Government Resolution dated 19.11.1997, however, gives special concession to widows of the deceased Government servants appointed on compassionate ground who fail to pass pre training examination within specific chances. Government in their wisdom made special concession in regard to widow appointed on compassionate ground which in our view cannot be extended to persons like petitioners. Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 specifically says once the appointment is made on compassionate ground such employee is put at par with the other Government employee and would be governed by all the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the Government servants..." 5. In light of the above submissions we have carefully perused the impugned order dated 28/07/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8517 of 1993. In light of the above submissions we have carefully perused the impugned order dated 28/07/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8517 of 1993. Referring the same it appears that learned Single Judge had mainly relied upon the judgments referred to in the said order and accordingly, dismissed the petition. It is not in dispute that present appellant is a widow, appointed on compassionate ground. In the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge referred to in the order, male family members of the deceased were appointed on compassionate ground. We are of the opinion that in light of the Government Resolution and in light of the observations made by the Full Bench referred to hereinabove, learned Single Judge had committed error in dismissing the petition under question simply placing reliance on the judgments in which male member of the family of deceased were appointed. We have considered the above-referred submissions and in view of the policy of the State Government, the appellant being a widow, is held to be entitled to avail of additional chances to appear in the Pre-service Training Examination and secondly, appellant was also required to be continued in service in view of policy of the State Government as contained in Government Resolution dated 19/11/1997 considering which, another widow (Chanduben Waghela) is continued in service. However, the appellant was not granted additional chances at the relevant point of time and discharged from service and that action is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 5.1 As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, after joining the service of the respondent, the appellant had put in 25 years of service and at present, she is 55 years of age and she will attain the age of superannuation on 31/07/2015. Considering all these aspects, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is required to be reinstated in service as has been done in case of Chanduben Waghela, in a similarly situated case, which was considered as per order dated 09/07/2008, copy of which is at Annexure-1, page 32 of Civil Application No. 11752 of 2009. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages and cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) which shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant within one month. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages and cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) which shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant within one month. The parties shall abide by the aforesaid earlier Government Resolutions dated 19/11/1997 and the order passed by the State Government on 09/07/2008 in case of Chanduben Waghela. 6.1 The Civil Application No. 2257 of 2012 is disposed as not surviving. Appeal allowed.