JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed whereby and whereunder the direction upon the opposite parties, specifically opposite party no. 2-Executive Engineer, Bhanjanagar Electrical Division (B.N.E.D.) SOUTHCO, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam has been sought to appoint the petitioner no. 1 under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme i.e. by way of compassionate appointment befitting to his educational qualification within a stipulated time. 2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made by the petitioners is that the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, who was an employee of erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board, has joined his duty there, but while serving has died on 1.7.1997. The petitioner no. 1, after death of his father, has made an application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year 1995 along with all documents, but no effect. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in view of the provision of Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 which has been adopted in view of the provision of Rule 11 of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and under the provision of Orissa State Electricity Board Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation, 1992 (hereinafter referred “Regulation 1992”) petitioner no. 1 is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground under the said provision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the death of father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2 has occurred on 1.7.1997 and petitioner no. 1 has made an application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 30.9.1997 and as such, he is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground either by the GRIDCO Limited or by the SOUTHCO reason being that even if the GRIDCO Limited has been created, the entire pending liability of the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board will automatically shift upon the GRIDCO Limited and thereby GRIDCO is accountable to provide appointment upon the compassionate ground. 5. He has further submitted that subsequently the distribution has been given to the subsidiary Unit and the place where the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 5. He has further submitted that subsequently the distribution has been given to the subsidiary Unit and the place where the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2 was posted now the SOUTHCO/CESU is there and as such, either the GRIDCO Limited or the SOUTHCO (CESU) is liable to appoint the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme or the Regulation, 1992. 6. The opposite parties have appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter-alia therein it has been stated that there is no liability upon the GRIDCO Limited. 7. In view of the fact that the GRIDCO Limited has been constituted w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and prior to transfer of asset and liability, the provision of Regulation, 1992 which contains the provision to provide appointment to the bereaved family of the deceased has been repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and since the provision under which the petitioner no. 1 is claimed to be appointed was no more in existence the date when the asset and liability has been transferred in favour of GRIDCO Limited. Hence, GRIDCO Limited is not liable to provide appointment to the petitioner no. 1. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that by relying upon the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 and the communication dated 30.3.1996 speaks that all pending rehabilitation cases will be dealt with under the revised GRIDCO procedure while the Grid Corporation of Orissa Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 speaks regarding definition of pending application under the provision of 3(k) which speaks regarding definition of pending application as any application for rehabilitation assistance in respect of any Eligible Employee made prior to the Effective Date other than a Disposed Application while under the provision of Regulation-9, the detail reference of pending applications have been given, according to which, on the Effective Date all Pending Applications shall be deemed to be applications made under these Regulation and shall be passed to the Head of the Office of the Eligible Employee in respect of whom the application is being made. Subject to Regulations 9.3 and 9.4, each such application shall be reviewed, determined and processed in accordance with these Regulations. 9. He has further submitted that Grid Corporation Limited has formulated the Regulation, 1997 wherein it has been provided to give financial benefit to the tune of Rs. Subject to Regulations 9.3 and 9.4, each such application shall be reviewed, determined and processed in accordance with these Regulations. 9. He has further submitted that Grid Corporation Limited has formulated the Regulation, 1997 wherein it has been provided to give financial benefit to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and no appointment to be provided under such category, as would be evident from the provision of Regulation 5.6 and as such, the petitioner no. 1 has got no case to seek an appointment on the compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 1990 or the Regulation, 1992. 10. In view of such submission, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out a case. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submission, it is evident that the petitioner no. 1 happen to be the son of the deceased employee, who dies in harness on 1.7.1997 and thereby an appointment under the Orissa State Electricity Board Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation, 1992 by filing an application in this regard on 30.9.1997. 12. The opposite parties have denied the claim of the petitioners on the basis of certain legal position and as such, the same needs to be referred herein before coming into the factual aspect of this case. 13. It is evident from the material available on record that in the State of Orissa there was an Orissa State Electricity Board. The State Government has come out with Orissa State Electricity Regulation, 1995 whereby and whereunder the Orissa State Electricity Board has been ceased to existence and in its place the GRIDCO Limited has come into existence w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The State of Orissa has formulated a provision known as Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of the deceased employee. The said provision contains a provision under Rule 11, according to which, the provision of providing appointment on compassionate ground has been held applicable to the public sector undertaking to the State of Orissa and in view of such provision, the Orissa State Electricity Board Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulations, 1992 has been formulated to provide appointment on compassionate ground under the said provision to the dependent of the deceased employee. The provision of Regulation, 1992 has been repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and thereafter, the asset and liability of the Orissa State Electricity Board has been taken over by the State Government and then it has been transferred to the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited which came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited has started functioning w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited has formulated its own regulation in the year 1997 known as the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 by which it was resolved to provide assistance for its employees and their dependents in the shape of financial assistance wherein the provision has been made under the provision of Regulation 5.6 to provide rehabilitation assistance which shall be Rs. 1,00,000/- which shall be paid in accordance with Regulation 13. The said regulation contains the provision to consider the pending application which was submitted prior to the effective date other than the disposed of application. The pending application has been defined under the provision of 3(k). The description of pending applications have been given in Regulation 9 whereby and whereunder it has been provided that on the Effective Date all the Pending Applications shall be deemed to be the applications made under these Regulations and shall be passed to the Head of the Office of the Eligible Employee in respect of whom the application is being made. Subject to Regulations 9.3 and 9.4, each such application shall be reviewed, determined and processed with these regulations. 14. It is further evident that the GRIDCO Limited has taken such decision in the light of the communication dated 30.3.1996 which speaks about dealing with the pending applications under the rehabilitation cases under the revised GRIDCO procedure, i.e. the Regulation, 1997. 15. It is further evident that the provision of Rule 11 of the Rehabilitation Scheme has also been repealed w.e.f. 7.10.1998. 16. The opposite parties has annexed a Government Notification published on 7.10.1998, i.e. related to the General Administration Department of the State Government and as such, is of got no bearing with respect to the case involved regarding the liability of the GRIDCO Limited or the SOUTHCO. In the light of this legal as well as factual position, the case of the petitioner no. 1 needs to be considered. 17. The admitted position in this case is that the father of the petitioner no. In the light of this legal as well as factual position, the case of the petitioner no. 1 needs to be considered. 17. The admitted position in this case is that the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of the petitioner no. 2 has died on 1.7.1997 which is after the dissolution of the Orissa State Electricity Board, after the repealment of Regulation, 1992 w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and after creation of the GRIDCO Limited w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and as such, admittedly the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of the petitioner no. 2 was an employee at that time of death was of GRIDCO Limited and as such, this Court is of the view that the GRIDCO Limited is the competent authority to take decision in this regard and in the light of this, it is to be scrutinized as to whether the action of the GRIDCO Limited is not providing appointment to the petitioner no. 1 is proper or not? 18. Admittedly, the SOUTHCO has come into existence in the year 1998, i.e. after the death of the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2. Hence, the SOUTHCO cannot be held liable to consider the case of the petitioner no. 1 to provide appointment on compassionate ground reason being that the death is prior to the creation of SOUTHCO. 19. It is evident that the provision of Regulation, 1992 has been repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and thereafter, the Company Secretary, GRIDCO Limited has issued a communication under letter 8512 dated 30.3.1996 to consider all pending rehabilitation cases which was decided to be dealt with under the revised GRIDCO procedure. 20. 19. It is evident that the provision of Regulation, 1992 has been repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996 and thereafter, the Company Secretary, GRIDCO Limited has issued a communication under letter 8512 dated 30.3.1996 to consider all pending rehabilitation cases which was decided to be dealt with under the revised GRIDCO procedure. 20. The Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited has come out with a regulation as Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulations, 1997 which has been made effective w.e.f. 1.4.1996, as would be evident from the communication dated 16.3.2012 which has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and while furnishing the information under the provision of Right to Information Act, it has been said therein that the provision of GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 was approved by the Board of Directors in its 21st meeting held on 23.10.1997 and came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1996, in view thereof, there is no confusion and dispute with respect to the factual aspect that on or from 1.4.1996 the provision of the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulation, 1997 will be applicable. 21. As has been stated hereinabove that the Grid Corporation has decided to consider the pending rehabilitation cases under the provision of revised grid procedure and the pending applications have been defined under the provision of 3(k) of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited Rehabilitation Assistance Regulations, 1997, according to which, the definition of pending applications is that any application for rehabilitation assistance in respect of any eligible employee made prior to the effective date other than the disposed of application. 22. It is further evident from the provision as contained in Regulation 9 of 1997 that on the Effective Date all the Pending Applications shall be deemed to be applications made under these Regulations and shall be passed to the Head of the Office of the Eligible Employee in respect of whom the application is being made. Hence, it is evident that since the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2 has died on 1.7.1997 and the petitioner no. 1 has made an application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 30.9.1997, the date when the provision of Regulation, 1997 has came into force. As such, the case of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2 has died on 1.7.1997 and the petitioner no. 1 has made an application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 30.9.1997, the date when the provision of Regulation, 1997 has came into force. As such, the case of the petitioner no. 1 is to be considered in the light of the provision of the Regulation of 1997 of GRIDCO and not on the basis of the Regulation, 1992 in view of the fact that the provision or Regulation, 1992 has been repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996, i.e. after the death of the father of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, since the death has occurred on 1.7.1997 while the provision of Orissa State Electricity Board Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Regulation, 1992 was repealed w.e.f. 29.3.1996, but the date of death would not be material date to consider the applicability of the provision of law, rather the date of making an application for getting appointment on compassionate ground would be the material date. 23. In view of the definition of pending application as given under the provision of Regulation 3(k) read with Regulation-9 of Regulation, 1997 and admittedly on that date, the provision of Regulation, 1997 was in force wherein there is no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground, rather the provision has been made to extend financial benefit. 24. It is settled that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be held as matter of right, since it is exception of regular procedure of appointment and as such, it is to be provided under the provision of scheme and if there is no provision in the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground, the appointment on that ground cannot be claimed by the dependent of the deceased employee. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a Government Resolution issued on 14.10.1998 by putting reliance upon the same, it has been stated that the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been extended in favour of the employees of the public sector undertakings w.e.f. 24.9.1990 and as such, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner no. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a Government Resolution issued on 14.10.1998 by putting reliance upon the same, it has been stated that the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme has been extended in favour of the employees of the public sector undertakings w.e.f. 24.9.1990 and as such, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner no. 1 may be deprived from the said benefit, but this argument is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the Government while repealing the provision of Rule 11 of the Regulation, 1990 has exercised the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which has got a statutory force, but the resolution dated 14.10.1998 is by way of resolution although in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of the State, but there is no dispute about the settled proposition of law that any decision taken by the State under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India has got its statutory force over and above any decision taken by the State by way of resolution since the resolution cannot override the statute rather, it is only to supplement and not to supplant and if there is any inconsistency in between the legislation promulgated by the State in exercise of power conferred Article 309 of the Constitution of India and decision by way of resolution, the statutory mandate taken under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution will prevail upon the resolution. 26. Here in the instant case, the deletion of provision of Rule 11 which contains the provision applicability of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to all the public sector undertakings of the State Government has been deleted in exercise of power conferred Article 309 of the State of India, but the resolution dated 14.10.1998 is in derogation to the provision of Article 309 and as such, this Court is of the considered view that resolution dated 14.10.1998 will not prevail upon the statutory provision enshrined under Article 309 whereby and whereunder the provision of Rule 11 of the Regulation, 1990 has been repealed. As such, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be derive any benefit on the basis of resolution dated 14.10.1998, as claimed. 27. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove, the petitioner no. As such, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be derive any benefit on the basis of resolution dated 14.10.1998, as claimed. 27. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be held to be entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.