ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2014, by which her application for compassionate appointment was rejected. 2. That father of the petitioner late Shri Amar Singh died on 16.9.1994, while working as peon in the Government Arts College and at that time, petitioner was aged about 3 years (22.1.1991). After attaining the age of majority in the year 2009 and acquiring the minimum qualification, she applied for the compassionate appointment on 23.8.2010, under the prevailing policy dated 10.6.1994. 3. Vide impugned order dated 20.2.2014, the said application has been rejected as time barred in light of the policy dated 18.8.2008. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri K. C. Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has wrongly rejected application of the petitioner on the ground of delay, as there is no time period prescribed in the policy dated 10.6.1994 and the case of the petitioner was required to be considered under the said policy, which was prevailing at the time of death of the her father. 5. Per contra, Shri Rohit Mangal placed reliance over clause 3.2 and 7 of the policy dated 18.8.2008, which puts a bar for entertaining the application for compassionate appointment after 7 years from the date of death. 6. That controversy involved in the case of the petitioner is that whether his case would be covered under the policy dated 18.8.2008 or policy dated 10.6.1994. The apex Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015)7 SCC 412 , has held that the policy in vague on the time of death of the concerned employee would apply. Paras 13 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :- 13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent’s father died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme ‘Dying in Harness Scheme’ dated 8.5.1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent’s claim on 30.6.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellant-bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent’s employment. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent’s claim on 30.6.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellant-bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent’s employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.5.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur’s case, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14.2.2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per circular of 1993. 14. It is also pertinent to note that 2005 Scheme providing only for ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment stands superseded by the Scheme of 2014 which has revived the scheme providing for compassionate appointment. As on date, now the scheme in force is to provide compassionate appointment. Under these circumstances, the appellant- bank is not justified in contending that the application for compassionate appointment of the respondent cannot be considered in view of passage of time. 15. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that since the respondent’s family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. 16. In Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others [ (2000)6 SCC 493 ], while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under :- “13. ….But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under :- “13. ….But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family — this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation. ” Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case, High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents’ family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 17. Considering the scope of the Scheme ‘Dying in Harness Scheme 1993’ then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference. 18. So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No.266/2008 and Civil Appeal No.267/2008 are concerned, they are similar and those respondents are similarly placed and the appeals preferred by the bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant-bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents in Civil Appeals No. 266/2008 and 267/2008. 19. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant-bank are dismissed and the appellant bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the concerned employee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 7. That in policy dated 10.6.1994, the clause which is relevant is clause No.5 which is reproduced below :- ^^¼ik¡p½ ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; mlds ifjokj dk lnL; vo;Ld lnL; dh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk mlds o;Ld gksus ij gksxh vkSj mlds vkosnu djus ij vuqdaik fu;qfDr nh tk ldsxhA** 8. Under this clause, any member of the decease’s family can apply for the compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majoriy. 9. In the present case, the petitioner became major in the year 2009 and within one year, she applied for compassionate appointment on 23.8.2010, therefore, the application was within time. Respondent has wrongly rejected the same by applying the policy dated 18.8.2008. 10. Thus, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the policy dated 10.6.1964. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is hereby disposed of. K. C. Raikwar for petitioner; Rohit Mangal for respondent/State.