Massodi, J.— 1. Shri Bikram Singh, employed as Inspector in Excise Department of the State Government, died in harness on 30.12.1989. His son, Shri Madan Gopal—respondent herein, approached appellants with an application for compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 194 of 1989 dated 18.05.1989. The appellants rejected his claim on the ground that his monthly income exceeded the upper limit prescribed under rules. 2. The respondent, undaunted by the rejection of his claim, approached appellants with an application for reconsideration of his case. The appellants did not accord consideration to the application, constraining the respondent to approach this Court with writ petition being SWP No. 439/1998. The writ petition was disposed of on 29th June, 1998 in following terms:- "This petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to take notice of observations made above. They would also take notice of SWP No. 488/1998. Petitioner would supply copy of the order passed in this case and also in SWP No. 488/98 to the respondents. They would process the case for further orders. Let it be done within a period of four months. The period of four months would begin from the date a copy of order passed by this court along with writ petition and annexures thereof are made available by the petitioner to the respondents." 3. The appellants in compliance of writ Court order considered respondent's case afresh and appointed him as Excise Guard. The respondent accepted the job offered by the appellants and after discharging his duties as Excise Guard, filed writ petition as SWP No. 2610/2001. 4. The case set up in the second writ petition, was that as the respondent had passed 10+2 examination he, in terms of Rule 3, Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO 43/1994), was to be appointed in the lowest rank of non gazetted service. It was pleaded that in terms of Rules, while dependant of deceased employee having matriculation qualification was to be appointed against the Class IV vacancy, such a candidate having above matriculation qualification was to be appointed in the lowest rank of non gazetted service. 5. The respondent insisted that other similarly placed beneficiaries/candidates, had been appointed in the lowest rank of non gazetted service and that he was singled out for discriminatory treatment. 5. The respondent insisted that other similarly placed beneficiaries/candidates, had been appointed in the lowest rank of non gazetted service and that he was singled out for discriminatory treatment. The respondent on the strength of averments made sought a direction to the appellants to appoint him as Sub Inspector Excise i.e. a post at the lowest rank in the non gazetted service in the Excise Department. 6. The appellants opposed the writ petition on the ground that the respondent's case was covered under SRO 194/1989 and he, therefore, could not invoke Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 to seek appointment against the higher post. 7. The writ Court taking note of Rule 3, Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, held respondent entitled to be appointed against a post in the lowest rank of non gazetted service. The stand taken by the respondent that SRO 194/1989 and not SRO 43/1994, was applicable to the respondent's case, was rejected by the writ Court on the ground that respondent was appointed as Excise Guard in compliance of writ Court order dated 29th June, 1998 in SWP No. 488/1998 and, therefore, Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 govern respondent's appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. The writ Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and directed appellants vide order dated 25.03.2009 to appoint respondent as Sub Inspector in the Excise department w.e.f. 05.08.1999. 9. The writ Court Judgment is questioned in the present Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds that as compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and giving such appointment in a particular case is to be left to the discretion of the Government, the dependant of Government employee, who dies in harness cannot ask for a particular post. The appellants insist that the respondent was not competent to base his claim on Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 and that having regard to the date of death of the respondent's father i.e. the date right accrued to the respondent to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, SRO 194/1989 was applicable and in terms of aforesaid order respondent was appointed as Excise Guard. Since appointment as Excise Guard is said to have been accepted by the respondent without any demur or reservation, the respondent, according to appellants is not entitled to lay claim to a higher post more so when he approached the Court two years after he accepted the post and took up the employment. 10. We have gone through the appeal as also the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Shri Bikram Singh father of respondent died in harness on 30th December, 1989. Right accrued to the respondent on death of his father in harness, to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent's claim was therefore, to be dealt under Rules in vogue on 30th December, 1989. Jammu and Kashmir Government Employee (death in harness) dependants Appointment Rules, 1989 notified vide SRO 194/1989 dated 18th May, 1989, came into force on the aforesaid date and therefore, occupied the field on the date of death of respondent's father. 12. The respondent approached the appellants for his appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of SRO 194/1989 sometime after death of his father. The claim was considered in the year 1990 and the respondent found not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of SRO 194/1989 on the ground that his income exceeded Rs. 2000/- per month i.e. limit prescribed in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 194/1989 dated 18th May, 1989. The case was referred by the Administrative Department to the General Department for relaxation of Rule 8 in favour of the respondent. However, the recommendation did not find favour with the General Administrative Department and respondent's claim was, accordingly, rejected. 13. The respondent after waiting for six long years approached the Court with writ petition being SWP No. 439/1998. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29th June, 1998 in terms of order reproduced above. The writ Court referred to Judgment rendered in SWP No. 488/1998 decided on 29th June, 1998 and asked the appellants to take notice of the aforesaid Judgment (SWP No. 488/1998) and process respondent's case, accordingly. The matter was considered and respondent vide order No. 119-F of 1999 dated 19th July, 1999, appointed as Excise Guard subject to fulfilment of eligibility criteria. 14. The matter was considered and respondent vide order No. 119-F of 1999 dated 19th July, 1999, appointed as Excise Guard subject to fulfilment of eligibility criteria. 14. The writ Court, as the facts and events narrated above would reveal, erred in holding the respondent entitled to a post higher than one against which he was appointed in terms of Rule 3, Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994. The aforesaid rules had no application to the claim put forth by the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds inasmuch as aforesaid rules had yet to come into force when right accrued to the respondent to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The writ Court for one or the other reason did not notice that Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, did not have retrospective effect and all the claims pending on the date said rules came into force were in terms of Rule 9 to be dealt with under rules existing on the date, right to seek compassionate appointment accrued to the dependant of a Government servant, dying in harness. 15. It is well settled law that the claim of a person for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be examined at the anvil of the rules/policy in vogue at the time of death in harness of a Government servant on whom such person claims to have been dependant. Reference in this regard may be made to law laid down in Vijay Kumar v. State and Ors. SWF No. 488/1998, Gh. Mohi-ud-Din v. Union of India and others SLJ 2000 (1) and Sajad Ahmad Mir v. State and others SLJ 2003 (1) 164 :2010 (4) JKJ HC-114 (DB). 16. The respondent, therefore, could not press into service Rule 3 (1) Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, to seek a direction commanding appellants to appoint him as Sub Inspector Excise. The compassionate appointment rules in force on the date right accrued to the respondent to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds i.e. 30.12.1989, did not obligate the appellants to offer the post of Sub Inspector Excise to the respondent because of his academic qualification, since no such right accrued under Jammu and Kashmir Government employees (death in harness) Dependants Appointment Rules, 1989. 17. 17. The writ Court was not right in granting the relief sought in the writ petition and commanding the appellants to appoint respondent as Sub Inspector Excise in terms of Rule 3 (1) Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994. The fact that respondent's claim was earlier rejected on the ground that his monthly income exceeded the minimum prescribed in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 194/1989 and that the matter was re-considered in compliance of Judgment in SWP No. 439/1998, does not make any difference or change complexion of the matter. The writ Court could not and did not postpone the date accrual of cause of action to the respondent or make new set of rules applicable to the respondent's claim, that had yet to come into existence on the date cause of action accrued to the respondent. 18. Even if, it is assumed for a while, though there is no scope for such assumption, that Rule 3(1) Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, had a key role to play in respondent's claim, yet he did not deserve the relief, sought in the writ petition and granted by the writ Court for the simple reason that in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Excise and Sales Tax (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991,'the post of Excise Guard, is not Class IV post, but a post lowest in rank in the non gazetted service. The respondent therefore, vide order No. 119-F of 1999 dated 19th July, 1999 was appointed against the post at the lowest rank in the non gazetted service in the Excise Department and had no grievance to project before the writ Court. 19. For the reasons discussed, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view taken by the writ Court. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and writ Court Judgment dated 25.03.2009, is set aside. 20. Record, if any, be returned under rules.