ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 12.3.2015 whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. In brief the case of petitioner is that his father late Shri Ram Chandra was working as Choukidar in the establishment of respondent No.2 and had died in harness on 2.7.2012 therefore, petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by impugned order. 3. A reply has been filed by respondents taking the stand that father of the petitioner was working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment therefore, in terms of the applicable circular the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment and the family of deceased employee is entitled for ex-gratia payment of Rs.1,25,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance upon circular dated 31.8.2016 submits that in terms of said circular, petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. Counsel for respondents has opposed the prayer submitting that circular dated 31.8.2016 is not applicable in petitioner's case and impugned order has rightly been passed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that by the impugned order dated 12.3.2015 petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been considered and petitioner has been found to be ineligible for compassionate appointment on the ground that petitioner's father was working on work charged and contingency paid establishment. The claim has been rejected on the ground that in terms of para 11.1 of circular dated 29.9.2014 wards of such deceased employee are not entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. Counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any error in said order except by submitting that claim of petitioner was required to be decided in the light of the subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016. Such a submission cannot be accepted because the circular dated 31.8.2016 was not in force at the time when petitioner's case was considered and decided by the impugned order dated 12.3.2015. The subsequent circular will have no applicability to petitioner's case which was already considered and decided. 8. Such a submission cannot be accepted because the circular dated 31.8.2016 was not in force at the time when petitioner's case was considered and decided by the impugned order dated 12.3.2015. The subsequent circular will have no applicability to petitioner's case which was already considered and decided. 8. Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Bank of Maharashtra v. Manoj Kumar Deharia and another, reported in 2010(3) MPLJ 213 , while considering the similar issue has held that compassionate appointment is governed as per the policies or provisions governing such appointment prevalent at a particular point of time when consideration is to be made. It has further been held that consideration and evaluation are required to be made in accordance to the existing policies and not on the basis of a policy or scheme which has become extinct. 9. Supreme Court also in the matter of Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015)7 SCC 412 , has considered similar issue and has held that claim of compassionate appointment under a scheme of a particular year cannot be decided based on subsequent scheme that came into force much after claim. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid position in law the argument of counsel for petitioner that petitioner's claim should be decided on the basis of subsequent circular dated 31.8.2016 cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. 11. The reply of respondents reveals that respondents are ready to extend the monetary benefit in the form of consolidated ex-gratia amount but on the request of petitioner same was deferred till the decision of the present writ petition. 12. Since the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been hereby rejected, therefore, respondents are directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for extending benefit of ex-gratia payment as per applicable circular to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. L. R. Bhatnagar for petitioner; M. Phadke for respondents.