JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.13.09.2010 and in pursuance thereof a direction upon the opposite parties to appoint him against any Class-IV post on compassionate ground. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that his father died on 20th September, 1983 while working under the petitioner – Orissa Electricity Board. The wife of the deceased employee had made an application for consideration of her appointment on compassionate ground in view of the scheme prevalent under the Orissa State Electricity Board, when her case was not considered she had filed writ petition being O.J.C. No.3535 of 1987 which was dismissed by this court vide order dtd.10.5.1988 directing the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner, it was considered and the claim was rejected vide office order no.3376 dtd.7.7.1988 on the ground that no suitable post was available at that time. The petitioner who happens to be the son of the deceased employee has made a fresh application for consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of death of his father. When the grievance of the petitioner was lying pending, he has approached this court vide O.J.C. No. 18263 of 1998 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order directing the authorities to take decision regarding claim of the petitioner within stipulated period and thereafter the authorities have taken decision, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dtd.13.9.2010 on the ground that second application for consideration of claim of a dependent of a deceased employee for appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable. The other ground taken is that in exercise of power conferred under OSEB Services 9Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation, 1992 which was repealed by virtue of OSEB Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Repealing Regulation, 1996 w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and by virtue of Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 and the Transfer Schemes/Rules framed thereunder the OSEB seized to function w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and the State Government in exercise of power conferred under the Act acquired the assets, liabilities, proceedings and personnel relating to transmission and distribution of electricity to GRIDCO w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The Board of Directors of GRIDCO have formulated a policy known as GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance, 1997 to provide financial assistance in lieu of employment with provision that the pending application shall be considered under the new Regulation. The Board of Directors of GRIDCO have formulated a policy known as GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance, 1997 to provide financial assistance in lieu of employment with provision that the pending application shall be considered under the new Regulation. The authorities have come out with the reasoning in the impugned order that OSEB Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1992 and GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 are not applicable and also the petitioner is not eligible to get rehabilitation assistance under those regulations with the other reasoning therein that from the legal heir certificate the petitioner is not found to be the alone member available in the family at the time of death of the deceased employee. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that since the death was occurred on 20th September, 1983 the case of the petitioner has not been considered while the cases of other similarly situated persons have been considered and they have been engaged on compassionate ground, to substantiate this argument the letter as contained in letter No.855 dtd.17.5.2011 has been relied upon. It has been contended that the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner without any application of mind while other’s claim have been considered and they have been engaged. So far as the reasoning given in the impugned order, it has been contended that in view of the regulation, 1992 the petitioner is entitled to be engaged on compassionate ground since the death of his father occurred on 20th September, 1983 and on that date the provision of Regulation, 1992 was in force. 3. While on the other hand opposite party – GRIDCO has appeared and filed counter affidavit, inter alia therein it has been stated that after the OSEB Reformation Act the GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance scheme has come which does not have any provision of giving appointment to the dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground. It has been contended that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and since there is no provision to offer appointment on compassionate ground under the prevailing rule the case of the petitioner has not been considered and hence rejected. It has been contended that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and since there is no provision to offer appointment on compassionate ground under the prevailing rule the case of the petitioner has not been considered and hence rejected. It has been contended that the claim of the mother of the petitioner was also considered being the first applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, but it was rejected in the year 1988 on the ground of non-availability of suitable post and thereafter after lapse of fairly long period subsequent application has been filed by the son of the deceased employee for getting appointment on compassionate ground and as such the second application for getting appointment on compassionate ground, that to after rejection of the first claim of the mother of the petitioner cannot be entertained and accordingly it has not been entertained. It has further been contended that even otherwise also since the death has occurred in the year 1983 and as such after lapse of long 33 years as on date no appointment can be given in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground since no purpose would be served since family has already survived for such a long period so there is no need to show any compassion on the right of others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that the ground taken by the opposite parties in the impugned order that the first application of the mother of the petitioner had been rejected is absolutely incorrect since before the authorities have taken decision regarding the claim of his mother, his mother had died and as such no order has been passed by the authorities since nothing has been communicated to the petitioner in this regard. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. Undisputed fact in this case is that the father of the petitioner happens to be an employee of Orissa State Electricity board had died on 20th September, 1983 while working in Class-IV post. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. Undisputed fact in this case is that the father of the petitioner happens to be an employee of Orissa State Electricity board had died on 20th September, 1983 while working in Class-IV post. After his death the widow of the deceased employee has made an application for consideration of her candidature for being appointed on compassionate ground but when it was not considered, she having no option had filed writ application before this court being O.J.C. no.3535 of 1987 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to dispose of the writ application directing the authorities to consider the grievance of the mother of the petitioner and accordingly the order was passed rejecting the claim of the mother of the petitioner vide order no.3376 dtd.7.7.1988 on the ground of non-availability of suitable post. The order passed by the authorities on 7.7.1988 has not been challenged since nothing has been pleaded in this regard in this writ petition. However, in this regard it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding given in the impugned order dtd.13.9.2010 regarding rejection of the claim of the mother of the petitioner vide order dtd.7.7.1988 is absolutely incorrect since no order has been communicated to him and it has been contended with emphasis that before the decision was taken by the authority, mother of the petitioner had died. In order to examine this submission, this court has verified the copy of the writ petition being O.J.C. no.3535 of 1987 and from its perusal this court has found out that the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this regard is contrary to the record rather in the said writ petition the order dtd.7.7.1988 as contained office order no.3376 has been annexed, hence the contention of the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. In view of such a situation now it is admitted position that after the death of the father of the petitioner on 20th September, 1983 his mother had filed an application for consideration of her candidature on account of compassionate ground under the prevailing scheme, but it was rejected vide order no.3376 dtd.7.7.1988 but the same has not been assailed or questioned before any court of law, hence the same has attained its finality. Thereafter the petitioner being the son has made an application after lapse of about more than ten years for consideration of his candidature for getting appointment on compassionate ground on the pretext that on the date of death of his father he was minor and as such could not made application for getting appointment on compassionate ground and immediately after attaining majority the application has been filed, after non-consideration of his application the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this court vide O.J.C. No.18263 of 1998 and this Court after taking into consideration the fact has passed the following order: “order No.4 dtd.24.7.2009:- Heard. The father of the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. He died in harness on 20.9.1983. The petitioner being his son had filed an application for compassionate appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for compassionate appointment has not yet been considered by the authorities only on the ground that the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has already been withdrawn with effect from 01.04.1996. Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the Scheme has not been withdrawn. On the other hand, many other persons, who are similarly placed like that of the present petitioner, have been given appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme few days back. This submission is strongly repudiated by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties. According to him though the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme exists, it provides only financial assistance and the provision for giving compassionate appointment under the Scheme has been abolished. Be that as it may, fact remains, the application filed by the petitioner has not yet been taken into consideration, on the ground that the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has already been withdrawn w.e.f. 01.04.1996. According to Mr. Rath, some persons who are similarly placed like that of the petitioner have been given appointment in the meantime. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in prescribed form. According to Mr. Rath, some persons who are similarly placed like that of the petitioner have been given appointment in the meantime. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in prescribed form. If such an application is filed enclosing all the relevant documents before the competent authority, opposite party no.2, within a period of three weeks hence, the said authority shall do well to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the same. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case......” From perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court it is evident that this court has passed the order without entering into the merit of the case and directing the opposite party to take decision, thereafter decision has been taken vide order dtd.13.9.2010 which is impugned in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to be engaged on compassionate ground (i) Since other similarly situated dependents of the deceased employee have been provided appointment, and (ii) On the ground that the application of the mother of the petitioner has never been rejected and before the decision having been taken by the authorities his mother has died and as such the finding given in the impugned order is absolutely contrary to the fact. So far as the second ground is concerned, the same has already been dealt with hereinabove and as such the same has not been discussed for avoiding repetition. So far as the second ground is concerned, the same has already been dealt with hereinabove and as such the same has not been discussed for avoiding repetition. So far as the first ground is concerned regarding providing appointment to other similarly situated employees, the same has also got no force for the reasons that all those employees have been appointed in the NMR post and further it is not evident from the pleading that how the petitioner is equating himself with those candidates who have been appointed as claimed on compassionate ground since in this case the petitioner being a second applicant, that too after rejection of the candidature of his mother for getting appointment on compassionate ground which has never been challenged before any court of law, can he derive any benefit on the ground that the other candidates have been appointed on compassionate ground, the answer will be in negative for the reason that when the authorities have taken decision regarding claim of the mother of the petitioner which has been rejected having not been challenged, hence the same has attained its finality and thereafter second application filed by the son taking the ground that since he was minor during the time of death of his father, hence he could not be able to file an application and immediately after attaining majority he has filed an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected and in the considered view of this Court it has rightly been rejected as because when once the authorities have taken decision by rejecting the claim of the mother of the petitioner, there cannot be any second consideration on the same point if the applicant is different, that to when the first order has never been challenged. So far as the other ground which is being evident from the impugned order dtd.13.9.2010 it transpires that the day when the son of the deceased employee, i.e. the petitioner herein has applied the entire structure of the Orissa State Electricity Board has been changed after coming into effect of Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 and GRIDCO has come up with its own Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme known as GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation 1997 in which there is no provision for providing appointment on compassionate ground rather provision has been made to provide financial assistance, hence in that view of the matter also the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered as because appointment on the compassionate ground can only be given under a scheme and if the scheme does not contain any condition in this regard, no appointment can be given to the dependent of the deceased employee. Moreover the claim of the petitioner regarding applicability of OSEB Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation 1992 which contains a condition for giving appointment on compassionate ground, but that cannot help the petitioner as because the day when the case of the petitioner was considered there was no force of Regulation 1992 after coming into effect of Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 and GRIDCO w.e.f. 1.9.1996 which has implemented GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation 1997. Otherwise also the petitioner cannot be given any consideration for appointment on compassionate ground considering the fact that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1983 and after lapse of more than thirteen years he has made an application and as on date it is almost 33 years, hence the entire purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground have been achieved since the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the deceased family who is in grave financial hardship due to sudden demise of the bread earner of the family. Admittedly the death has occurred in the year 1983 and if the family would survive for a period of 33 years, there is no question of providing financial relief in such a belated stage. Admittedly the death has occurred in the year 1983 and if the family would survive for a period of 33 years, there is no question of providing financial relief in such a belated stage. In this connection reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Shashank Goswami and another, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 wherein it has been held at paragraphs 9,10 and 13 which are being quoted herein below for ready reference. “9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and 10 dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 13. In Mumtaz YunusMulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 384 , this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds.” In view of such settled proposition of law and in view of the facts discussed herein above, there is no infirmity in the order impugned in this writ petition and accordingly the case is dismissed.