JUDGMENT: Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged action of the respondent-Gujarat Electricity Board in not granting him compassionate appointment. 2. Brief facts are as under: "Undisputedly, father of the petitioner, who was employed as a helper in the Board, died on 12.02.1997 due to cancer while still in service. The petitioner, therefore, applied for compassionate appointment under his application dated 10.05.1997 in terms of the policy of the Board, for grant of compassionate appointments in case of the employees dying in harness. The petitioner had two brothers. One of them was appointed as Vidya Sahayak on 28.10.1998. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was not decided till then. On 03.04.1999, the Board conveyed to the mother of the petitioner i.e. the widow of the deceased employee that, as per GSO 295, compassionate appointment can be granted only when no member of the family is employed. In case of the deceased, his son has been employed in service and the application for compassionate appointment is, therefore, filed. Despite such rejection, the petitioner continued his efforts and made representations to the Board. The Board, thereupon, yet again on 21.12.1999, conveyed that since one son of the deceased employee has been employed, application of another dependent for compassionate appointment cannot be granted. The petitioner, thereupon, after making further futile efforts, filed this petition." 3. The case of the petitioner is simple viz. the Board policy permits appointment on compassionate basis. On the date of death of the employee and when the application for compassionate appointment was made, no member of the family was serving in the Board or in any other service. The decision of the Board to reject the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that one member of the family was employed much later was wholly improper. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Board kept the application of the petitioner pending for long which cannot be the ground for rejection of the request for compassionate appointment on the basis of later developments. In any case, what is to be seen is, the condition of the family on the date of death and not any further changes thereafter. She also contended that the brother of the petitioner who was appointed as Vidya Sahayak, had separated out from the family and his income, therefore, was of no support to the widow of the deceased. In any case, what is to be seen is, the condition of the family on the date of death and not any further changes thereafter. She also contended that the brother of the petitioner who was appointed as Vidya Sahayak, had separated out from the family and his income, therefore, was of no support to the widow of the deceased. She lastly contended that, GSO 312 envisages payment of Rs. 500/- per month pending compassionate appointment. Even such amount was not paid till the application was rejected. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Bhaya opposed the petition contending that, the policy of the Board clearly envisages grant of appointment only in a case, where no member of the family is employed either with the Board or elsewhere. When the brother of the petitioner got employment as a Vidya Sahayak, the application for compassionate appointment was not yet decided. The same had to be decided on the basis of circumstances prevailing on the date of such decision. Regarding non-payment of Rs. 500/- per month, as provided in GSO 312, she submitted that the investigation of the Board revealed that the family had sizeable other income. The petitioner was, therefore, not qualified for being appointed on compassionate ground which would also mean that no such interim payments could be made. 5. I may first deal with the question of petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. As noted, the admitted facts are that, the father of the petitioner died while in service on 12.02.1997. Though the petitioner claims that he made an application for compassionate appointment on 10.05.1997, the Board, in the affidavit, points out that the application was undated and was received only by the Bavla Sub-Division on 11.10.1997. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the petitioner did apply for compassionate appointment. It is also not in dispute that no member of the family was employed at that time. The averment of the Board that two of the sons of the deceased were doing labour work would not mean they were employed. However, it is equally true that, before the application of the petitioner could be decided, the brother of the petitioner was appointed as Vidya Sahayak on 28.10.1998. In background of such facts, we may notice the Board's policy regarding compassionate appointment. However, it is equally true that, before the application of the petitioner could be decided, the brother of the petitioner was appointed as Vidya Sahayak on 28.10.1998. In background of such facts, we may notice the Board's policy regarding compassionate appointment. In GSO 295 dated 19.12.1981, under which the formula for compassionate appointment was envisaged, it was provided that: "9. Employment of Dependents: 1. In case of deceased employees. In case an employee dies during service in the Board, one dependent (Child or spouse) would be employed by the Board on any vacant post for which such dependent holds the necessary qualifications/experience. This benefit of the deceased employees is/are already employed within our outside the Board. 2. In case of retired employees. Dependent children of retired employees who apply for posts advertised by the Board, will be given preference over other applicants having equal qualifications/experience. This benefit would not be available in cases where one or more members of the family of the deceased employee is/are already employed within or outside the Board. In both the above cases of recruitment, in relaxation of the maximum age prescribed, the maximum age limit would be considered to the 40 years of age. Explanation: Family member means a child only. Such appointments will be made with the prior approval of the Head Office." 6. Thus, the Board prescribed the policy of granting compassionate appointment to one dependent of an employee, who died during service, provided he holds necessary qualification and experience required for the post. It is also provided that such benefit would not be available in cases, where, one or more members of the family of the deceased employee is/are already employed within or outside the Board. Thus, if there is any member of the family already in service of the Board or elsewhere, the appointment on compassionate ground would not be granted. 7. This policy was further amended and refined under GSO 312 dated 03.12.1989, in which, while providing that the dispensation regarding employment to dependent of deceased employees as per GSO 295 would continue; pending appointment of such dependents in the Board, payment on compassionate grounds will be made as provided therein. 7. This policy was further amended and refined under GSO 312 dated 03.12.1989, in which, while providing that the dispensation regarding employment to dependent of deceased employees as per GSO 295 would continue; pending appointment of such dependents in the Board, payment on compassionate grounds will be made as provided therein. Relevant portion of this GSO reads as under: "1.1 While the above dispensation regarding employees of dependent (Child or spouse) of the deceased employee shall continue, pending appointment of such dependents in the Board, payment on compassionate grounds will be made as follows, subject to the same conditions governing employment in the Board as enumerated in para 1.0 above: (i) Payment of Rs. 500/- p.m. (Rs. Five Hundred Only) shall be made to the dependent (child or spouse) of a deceased employee where death is due to natural causes while in service, from the date of demise. This benefit will be applicable only to those cases where death due to natural causes while in service, has occurred on or after 24.7.1988. (ii) The cash compensation of Rs. 500/- per month will not be available in respect of the dependent (child or spouse) of a deceased employee, if the dependent is over 40 years of age and/or he/she does not possess qualifications. Prescribed for any employment in the Board. In other words, if the dependent is above 40 years and/or is unqualified/illiterate this benefit shall not be available. (iii) Further, this benefit shall not be available if there is any earning member in the family. 2.0 The payment will be discontinued in the event of the following: (I) The dependent of deceased employee being offered a job in the Board. (ii) The job offered by the Board is not accepted within the time limit stipulated for any reasons whatsoever; and (iii) Any member of the deceased employee's family getting a job outside the Board; and (iv) Beyond the date on which the employee concerned would have retired from the service but for his death, while in service. 3.0 All cases of such compassionate payment shall be decided in the Head Office only, jointly by the General Manager (HRL) and the General Manager (Finance). 3.1 Thereafter the sanction order will be issued by the Establishment Department of the Head Office for 6 months in the first instance to the Head of the Office where the deceased employee was last working. 3.1 Thereafter the sanction order will be issued by the Establishment Department of the Head Office for 6 months in the first instance to the Head of the Office where the deceased employee was last working. The Head of the office will make payment as authorised on the strength of certificate to be given by the beneficiary every month, that no member of the family has been gainfully employed. The Head of the office shall also ensure satisfaction of other conditions percent to such payment." 8. As per this policy thus, pending appointment of such dependents in the Board, there would be payment on compassionate grounds at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month where death occurred due to natural causes. This payment is subject to certain conditions. Firstly, that no such payment will be made in respect of dependent who is over 40 years of age or who does not possess qualification prescribed for the appointment in the Board. Further, this benefit would also not be available, if there is already an earning member in the family. Continued payment was also made subject to certain conditions. Such payment would be discontinued if, upon a dependent being appointed in the Board or, if job is offered but not accepted by him or, any member of the deceased family gets a job outside the Board. As per Clause 3.1 of the said GSO, the Head Office would periodically verify satisfaction of these conditions. 9. Two things immediately become clear from this GSO 312. First is that, pending consideration of an application of a person otherwise qualified to seek compassionate appointment by way of compassionate measures, a sum of Rs. 500/- per month would be paid to the family in case of death of the employee due to natural causes. Second is that, all conditions, which are necessary for seeking appointment on compassionate basis would also have to be applied for receiving this benefit of Rs. 500/- per month. In other words, if the dependent is above 40 years of age and, therefore, not qualified for being appointed in the Board or is otherwise unqualified educationally or experience wise, such payment would not be made. The payment would also not be made, if there is already a member of the family serving in the Board or outside. In other words, if the dependent is above 40 years of age and, therefore, not qualified for being appointed in the Board or is otherwise unqualified educationally or experience wise, such payment would not be made. The payment would also not be made, if there is already a member of the family serving in the Board or outside. The payment would be discontinued, if the dependent is granted employment in the Board, if offered appointment refuses to accept or any member of the family is employed even outside the Board. 10. Thus, the requirement of no member of the family being employed either in the Board or outside is one of the essential conditions for seeking appointment on compassionate basis for any dependent of the deceased. Though plain reading of GSO 295 may suggest that such condition is to be examined on the date of death of the employee, the further modification pursuant to GSO 312 would establish that the continued satisfaction of such condition would also be essential for claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. In other words, if shortly after the death of the employee, one member of the family is appointed in the Board or outside, the other member of the family cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. The request of the petitioner for ignoring the appointment of his brother as Vidya Sahayak pending his application for compassionate appointment, therefore, cannot be accepted. 11. Having said that, I cannot accept the stand of the Board on two aspects. First reference is made to a later GSO circular dated 26.11.1999, in which, income limit of Rs. 2000/- per month is imposed for granting compassionate appointments. Quite apart from the question whether the policy prevailing at the time of death or application of the dependent for compassionate appointment, the policy which was never in existence when the application for compassionate appointment was rejected, cannot be pressed in service to justify such a decision. In other words, when the petitioner's application was rejected on 03.04.1999, the income limit was not prescribed. Such income limit, which was prescribed vide circular dated 26.11.1999, surely cannot be pressed in service to justify the decision taken earlier. 12. Far more substantial objection I have with the approach of the Board is with respect to non-payment of compassionate payment of Rs. Such income limit, which was prescribed vide circular dated 26.11.1999, surely cannot be pressed in service to justify the decision taken earlier. 12. Far more substantial objection I have with the approach of the Board is with respect to non-payment of compassionate payment of Rs. 500/- per moth to the family from the date of death of the deceased employee till the brother of the petitioner was appointed as a Vidya Sahayak on 28.10.1998. Contrary to what is sought to be canvassed before me, I do not see this policy has payment of Rs. 500/- in cases where the application for compassionate appointment is already granted but the appointment is not yet made. Instead, in my opinion, the policy is to grant minimum succor to the family, who finds itself in financial distress on account of sudden demise of the sole earning member of the family. As long as the applicant is not disqualified from seeking appointment on compassionate ground and as long as other conditions viz. of no other member of the family being employed are satisfied, the family would receive such compassionate interim payment of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of death of the deceased employee till, in the present case, the brother of the petitioner got employment. 13. I am conscious that no direct prayer is made for such payment. However, the issue is very much part and parcel of the entire controversy. Even the Board has given detailed response to this aspect. In fact, it was only through the reply of the Board that this further policy of GSO 312 was brought on record. The Board has simultaneously in the reply also justified why such payment was not required to be made and, therefore, was not made. Under the circumstances, the petitioner not formally claiming such relief would not detain me from granting such sum. 14. Resultantly, the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment also is rejected. However, the Board shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of death of the employee i.e. 12.02.1997 till the petitioner's brother was appointed as Vidya Sahayak i.e. 28.10.1998. Such payment shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date it fell due and payable till actual release. Such sum shall be released latest by 30.04.2016.