ORDER : K.M. Thaker, J. In present petition under Article 226 and Article 14 of Constitution of India the petitioner seeks monetary benefit i.e. lumpsum compensation under the scheme introduced by the respondent State in super session of the erstwhile scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "10(B)That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents herein to grant monetary benefits to the petitioners as per letter dated 08.02.2012." 2. So as to appreciate and consider the relief prayed for by the petitioner and the decision of the respondent authority, it would be necessary to take into account some of the relevant facts. 2.1. The petitioner has claimed, inter alia, that his father was working as Forester in the Forest Office at Surendranagar. 2.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that his father died in harness in September 1988. The petitioner has also claimed that after the sad demise of his father he had submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground which was forwarded by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.3. 2.3. The petitioner has, for reasons best known to him, neither mentioned the date on which he made application seeking appointment on compassionate ground nor has he placed a copy of the application on record. 2.4. It is claimed by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 forwarded his application to respondent no.3 in August 1998. According to the petitioner, certain queries were raised by respondent no.3. The petitioner has averred: "it is further submitted that the respondent no.3 by its letter dated 12.02.1999 had replied to the queries of respondent no.1 and had send positive opinion in favour of the petitioner". The petitioner has further claimed that the respondent no.3 thereafter forwarded the application for further verification to respondent no.4 on 27.02.1999 and that the respondent no.4 had given some reply to respondent no.3 on 8th April 1999. 2.5. After stating the abovementioned details, which unfortunately do not clarify the nature and type of queries which were raised by the respondent nos. 2.5. After stating the abovementioned details, which unfortunately do not clarify the nature and type of queries which were raised by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and also do not give any details regarding the interregnum between 1988 to 1999 and/or the reply given by respondent no.4 to respondent no.3 the petitioner has further averred that in June 1999 he had requested the respondents that he was ready and willing to take up the post of Bit- Guard (Class III). 2.6. The petitioner has, after mentioning the aforesaid details, proceeded to mention the event which allegedly occurred in September 2008 i.e. after further gap of 9 years. The petitioner has claimed that on 18th September 2008 he received a letter rejecting his application on the ground that (a) he lacked requisite educational qualification as per applicable rules; and (b) that the family had sufficient income/source of income which would disqualify him from seeking appointment on compassionate ground as per terms of the applicable policy. 2.7. It appears that for almost three years after receiving the said communication in September 2008, the petitioner did not take any action against the said decision dated 18.09.2008 and after three years the petitioner filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10269 of 2011 which was disposed of by the Court by order dated 16.08.2011 asking the respondents to consider the petitioner's application on the basis of the policy which prevailed at the time of death of the petitioner's father. 2.8. The petitioner has then claimed that before the said order dated 16.08.2011 came to be passed, the respondent had withdrawn all previous schemes and, instead, introduced the scheme dated 05.07.2011 which offered monetary benefit/lumpsum compensation to the heirs of Government Employee who die in harness. 2.9. After the said order the petitioner seems to have received letter dated 8th February 2012 from respondent no.4 asking him to submit certain documents to enable the authority to consider his application for monetary benefit as per resolution dated 05.07.2011. 2.10. Having mentioned the said details the petitioner has claimed that though he supplied the documents asked for by the respondents, he has not been paid the lumpsum compensation as per the scheme dated 05.07.2011. 3. 2.10. Having mentioned the said details the petitioner has claimed that though he supplied the documents asked for by the respondents, he has not been paid the lumpsum compensation as per the scheme dated 05.07.2011. 3. It is noticed from the memo of petition and the relief prayed for by the petitioner that nowhere in the memo of petition or even in the prayer clause the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground. 3.1. It follows that petitioner is not interested in, and does not seek, actual appointment but is merely interested in monetary benefit/lumpsum compensation. 4. The respondents have opposed the petition. A reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is mentioned that: "7. The deponent submits that the mother of the petitioner made an application before Forest Department that she is not looking up for compassionate appointment and compassionate appointment may be granted to her elder son Kanubhai. A copy of the application dated 27.09.1988 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R I to this reply. Thereafter the elder brother of the petitioner namely Kanubhai made an application for compassionate appointment. A copy of the application dated 03.10.1990 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R II to this reply. Pursuant to the application from the Kanubhai certificate had been issued by the Mamlatdar, Una on 08.10.1990 as per the said certificate income of the mother of the petitioner is Rs.12,792/-. A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R III to this reply. 8. The deponent submits that pursuant to the compassionate application forwarded by the mother of the petitioner as well as brother of the petitioner Forest Department rejected the said application by way of order dated 31.12.1990 stating that the income of the mother of the petitioner is more thanRs.12,000/-. Hence, application of the petitioner had been rejected. A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R IV to this reply. 9. The deponent submits that the deponent taken into consideration instructions regarding the income criteria which had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest by way of communication dated 03.06.1988. As per the said directions the family who are earning more than Rs.1,000/- cannot be considered as eligible for the compassionate appointment. 9. The deponent submits that the deponent taken into consideration instructions regarding the income criteria which had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest by way of communication dated 03.06.1988. As per the said directions the family who are earning more than Rs.1,000/- cannot be considered as eligible for the compassionate appointment. In that case decision taken by the department while rejecting the application of the brother of the petitioner is just and proper. 10. The deponent submits that the application of the elder brother of the petitioner had been rejected in the year 1990 after 8 years thereafter the present petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment only on the ground that they are in misery conditions and required to be appointed. As per the provisions of the law the application preferred by the petitioner is misconceived and said compassionate appointment is given to a family to survive out of tough situation and it is not personal rights of any person. 11. The deponent submits that the petitioner cannot say that if his elder brother did not succeeded in getting compassionate appointment then he can get the compassionate appointment on behalf of his elder brother by making false application is not just and proper. The application forwarded by the petitioner dated 20.07.1998 was rejected on 31.01.2001 and said was also informed to the petitioner by 16.10.2001. A copy of the communication dated 16.10.2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R V to this reply. 12. The deponent submits that thereafter the petitioner file petition being Special Civil Application No.10269 of 2011 and said petition had been disposed of with directions without issuance of notice and the said petition had been disposed of by way of order dated 16.08.2011 to consider the case within 3 months as per the policy prevailing at the relevant time, and even after considering the same the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 13. The deponent submits that by way of communication dated 25.05.2011 the case of the petitioner was considered as per the prevailing policy of 1988 and case of the petitioner finally rejected on 25.05.2012 by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Surendranagar. 13. The deponent submits that by way of communication dated 25.05.2011 the case of the petitioner was considered as per the prevailing policy of 1988 and case of the petitioner finally rejected on 25.05.2012 by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Surendranagar. Though the case of the petitioner had been decided on 31.01.2001 and was communicated at least four times vide letters dated 16.10.2001, 21.05.2003, 17.06.2003 and 25.05.2012 but the petitioner never mentioned regarding these orders and therefore only on ground of suppression of material fact this petition deserves to be rejected......... 14. This petition deserves to be rejected only on the ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner date of birth is 10.10.1977 and hence the petitioner at present is about 36 years of age and as per the system of the society this age cannot be considered as dependent. Hence, petition deserves to be rejected only on this ground. 15. The deponent submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefits of Government resolution dated 05.07.2011 as per the clause 5 and 6 of the said Government Resolution the said Government Resolution is not applicable to the pending application and application which had been rejected in past will not get any benefits of monetary compensation. In addition to that as per the clause 3(3) compensation only be granted to the person in whose name family pension is continued. In present case father of the petitioner had been died and hence the family pension is provided to the mother of the petitioner. But subsequently also the mother of the petitioner also died and hence there is no one in its family who is eligible for the family pension and hence, as per the said Government Resolution clause 3(3) the compensation only can be granted in whose name pension is sanctioned or sanction able. Even in this case all the other family members of the petitioner family are adult and married and hence no family pension can be given to the petitioner family." 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after death of his father, the petitioner had made application for appointment on compassionate ground and he has supplied all details which were called for by the respondents and when he received communication seeking details the petitioner had supplied all details, however, petitioner did not receive any payment. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after death of his father, the petitioner had made application for appointment on compassionate ground and he has supplied all details which were called for by the respondents and when he received communication seeking details the petitioner had supplied all details, however, petitioner did not receive any payment. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that in view of the policy introduced vide Resolution dated 05.07.2011, the respondents are obliged to grant benefit to the petitioner under said scheme to the petitioner (though his father died in 1988). 6. The petition is opposed by the respondents and learned AGP has submitted that in the facts of the case the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit and the decision of the respondent authorities is just and proper and in consonance with the terms of applicable policy and the petition may be rejected. 6.1. He also submitted that at initial stage the wife of deceased employee had made an application dated 27.09.1988 declaring, inter alia, that she did not want appointment but her elder son Kanubhai may be granted appointment on compassionate ground. 6.2. After such declaration by the wife of the deceased employee, her elder son had made application on or around 3rd October 1988 which was rejected by order dated 31.12.1988. 6.3. Thereafter, younger son of the deceased employee made application on 20.07.1998 which was not entertained because one application was already considered and rejected on 31.01.2001. 6.4. Learned AGP also submitted that even according to the terms of the scheme introduced under Resolution dated 05.07.2011, the cases which have been finally decided prior to introduction of the scheme cannot be reconsidered under the new scheme. Learned AGP submitted that in the facts of the case the petitioner may not be granted any relief. 7. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner has not clarified several anomalies and/or lacuna which are apparent in the narration of relevant facts mentioned in the petition. 7.1. There are several gaps in the details mentioned by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court has to turn to the details mentioned by the respondents in their reply affidavit which are not controverted and not denied by the petitioner. 8. The respondents have stated that the father of the petitioner died on 6th September 1988 and the petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground after about 10 years i.e. in July 1998. 8. The respondents have stated that the father of the petitioner died on 6th September 1988 and the petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground after about 10 years i.e. in July 1998. It is further claimed that the petitioner is fifth child of deceased employee and he is thirty-three years old. 8.1. It is also claimed by the respondents that after death of her husband, petitioner's mother had declared that she did not want to be appointed and instead her elder son viz. Mr. Kanubhai may be granted appointment on compassionate ground. Such declaration was made by deceased's wife i.e. petitioner's mother on 27th September 1988. 8.2. Thereafter, in October 1990, the said elder son Mr. Kanubhai made application for appointment on compassionate ground. 8.3. The said application was considered by the competent authority and was rejected by the competent authority in December 1990. 8.4. It is further claimed that after lapse of about 8 years since the rejection of application by elder son of deceased employee, present petitioner preferred application for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. In view of the fact that the one application was submitted by an heir of deceased employee i.e. by and on behalf of family of the deceased employee and such application was already considered and rejected, another application by another member of the family of deceased employee cannot be considered and such application would not be maintainable. Having regard the said position the application dated 29.07.1998 made by present petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2001. The factual aspects and details mentioned by the respondent are not disputed by the petitioner. 10. Thus, what emerges from the narration of factual aspects by the respondents is that: (a) the wife of deceased employee declared that she did not want to be appointed; (b) instead she clarified that her elder son may be granted appointment; (c) the application made in October 1990 (by elder son of the deceased employee) was duly considered and after proper consideration it was rejected in December 1990; (d) the said order passed in December 1990 was not and has not been challenged by said Mr. Kanubhai or any other member of family of deceased employee; (e) then after lapse of 8 years another son (i.e. the petitioner) of the deceased employee made an application in July 1998 which came to be rejected in January 2001; (f) at the relevant time the said decision/order of January 2001 also was not challenged by the petitioner or any other member of family of the deceased employee. (g) however, subsequently, i.e. after passage of almost one decade, the petitioner preferred writ petition in 2011 which came to be disposed of with certain observations in August 2011; (h) though, the petitioner has not mentioned any details of the events after order dated 16.08.2011 the respondents have mentioned that after the said order dated 16.08.2011 petitioner's application was reconsidered in light of the policy which prevailed in 1988 and after due consideration the said application came to be rejected vide decision dated 25.05.2012; (i) The respondents have also clarified that the petitioner has been conveyed, at least, on four occasions i.e. vide letters dated 16.10.2001, 21.05.2003, 17.06.2003 and 25.05.2012 about the decisions on the applications, the said details have been suppressed by the petitioner; (j) it is also claimed that the petitioner's Date of Birth is 10.10.1977 and that the petitioner is already 36 years old which is another reason in view of which the petition may not be entertained. 11. Having mentioned the said details the respondents have submitted that the petitioner's claim for lumpsum compensation as per the new scheme is not maintainable in view of the terms of the policy. 12. As mentioned hereinabove earlier, none of the details mentioned in the reply affidavit and/or none of the documents annexed to the reply affidavit are disputed or controverted or denied by the petitioner. 12.1. Actually, any rejoinder affidavit has not been filed by the petitioner in response to the reply affidavit dated 21.02.2013. 12.2. Therefore, the said details have remained uncontroverted and consequently Court has to proceed on the basis of the said uncontroverted details. 13. In present petition also none of the orders passed by the respondents (including the orders rejecting the applications by the petitioner) have been challenged. 14. The petitioner has not even prayed for appointment on compassionate ground. 15. 12.2. Therefore, the said details have remained uncontroverted and consequently Court has to proceed on the basis of the said uncontroverted details. 13. In present petition also none of the orders passed by the respondents (including the orders rejecting the applications by the petitioner) have been challenged. 14. The petitioner has not even prayed for appointment on compassionate ground. 15. Now, so far as the petitioner's claim for lump sum compensation is concerned, the said claim is made in light of the new scheme which came to be introduced in July 2011. 15.1. In this context, it is relevant to note that according to the terms of the scheme introduced vide Resolution dated 05.07.2011 the cases/applications which have been already considered and decided/disposed of/rejected, cannot be considered and such cases are not entitled for lumpsum compensation under the said scheme and the case which is already considered and only undecided and pending applications i.e. the applications which though submitted before the date of resolution but remained undecided and pending and/or the applications which are made for the first time after the introduction of the scheme, can be considered under the said scheme dated 05.07.2011. 16. In view of the fact that the application made by the elder brother of the petitioner and even the application made by the petitioner himself were rejected on previous occasion and that too before a decade, it is clear that as per the terms and conditions of the new scheme the petitioner's case does not qualify for consideration under the new scheme. 16.1. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right but a concession and therefore such claim can be considered only if a duly declared policy is in existence and only in accordance with terms of such policy. 16.2. Similar would be legal position so far as the scheme or policy for granting monetary benefit/lump sum compensation instead of appointment, on compassionate ground. 16.3. Such claim for lump sum compensation can be made only if any policy is in existence and can be considered only in accordance with terms and conditions of such scheme. 16.4. In present case, the claim by the petitioner does not qualify for consideration in view of the terms of the scheme which provides, inter alia, that the closed and decided cases will not qualify for the benefit under the new scheme. 17. 16.4. In present case, the claim by the petitioner does not qualify for consideration in view of the terms of the scheme which provides, inter alia, that the closed and decided cases will not qualify for the benefit under the new scheme. 17. In this context reference may be made to the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Rajkumar, 2010 (11) SCC 661 . The facts in light of which the said proceedings commenced are mentioned in the said decision in paragraph No.2, 4 and 5, which read thus: "2. The respondent's father employed as a Messenger in the appellant Bank, died on 1102004. The respondent's mother made applications dated 662005 and 1462005 requesting for his appointment on compassionate grounds. When the applications were being processed and verified, the Compassionate Appointment Scheme was substituted by the "SBI Scheme for payment of ex gratia lump sum amount" with effect from 482005. The new Scheme abolished the old Scheme for compassionate appointments and instead provided for payment of an ex gratia lump sum amount as per its terms. 4. As the old Scheme came to be abolished and compassionate appointment was no longer permissible after the new Scheme came into force, the Bank on 3112006 advised the family of the deceased to make an application under the new Scheme for ex gratia payment. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. 5. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 852008 directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds, holding that the old Scheme applied and the new Scheme was only prospective in operation. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 192008, which is under challenge in this appeal by special leave." 17.1. In background of said facts Hon'ble Apex Court observed that; "16. In this case the employee died in October 2004, the application was made only in June 2005. The application was not even by the respondent, but by his mother. Therefore, it was necessary to ascertain whether the respondent really wanted the appointment, whether he possessed the eligibility, and whether any post was available. Within two months of the application, the new Scheme came into force and the old Scheme was abolished. The application was not even by the respondent, but by his mother. Therefore, it was necessary to ascertain whether the respondent really wanted the appointment, whether he possessed the eligibility, and whether any post was available. Within two months of the application, the new Scheme came into force and the old Scheme was abolished. The new Scheme specifically provided that all pending applications will be considered under the new Scheme. Therefore it has to be held that the new Scheme which came into force on 482005 alone will be apply even in respect of pending applications. 19. The above observations were made in the context of rejecting the widow's request for additional payment under the 2005 Scheme. In fact, this Court allowed the Bank's appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the widow for additional benefits. The said observations, cannot therefore be of any assistance to consider the applicability of the old Scheme for compassionate appointment visavis the new Scheme for ex gratia payment. 20. The respondent was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The High Court was not justified in quashing the communication dated 3112006 or in directing reconsideration of the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment." 17.2. Thus, in light of the above quoted observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision - wherein almost similar facts are considered - the decision by the respondents cannot be faulted. 18. On overall consideration of all facts and circumstances, the grievance made by the petitioner and the claim made by him in present petition is misconceived and unsustainable and cannot be considered in view of the facts of the case as well as in light of the provisions of the relevant scheme. Hence, having regard to all facts and circumstances and the terms of the scheme the petition must fail and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.