JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 04.03.2010, wherein and whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that his family cannot be said to be in pitiable condition since it has received an amount of Rs. 5,33,028/- after the death of his father and a monthly amount of Rs. 3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. By subsequent amendment, the petitioner has stated that he is ready and willing to accept the lump-sum compensation as per the new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was serving as Bore Operator under Respondent no.2, and he died on 04.10.2006. The petitioner, being one of the dependents made an application on 20.10.2006. By the impugned communication dated 04.03.2010 the case of petitioner is rejected, considering the financial status of the family. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. Kirit Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the income limit criteria will not apply in the case of the petitioner since vide Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 such criteria is removed. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Kirit Patel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (7) S.C.C. 412 , for the proposition of law that the policy prevailing at the time of application made by the petitioner shall prevail and the case for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected only because the family of the deceased has some financial income. 5. Learned AGP, Mr. Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has submitted that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in pitiable condition as it has received an amount of Rs. 5,33,028/- after the death of his father and a monthly amount of Rs. 3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. He has also submitted that the case of the petitioner is also not covered under the new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 since the case of the petitioner is already rejected. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment dated 03.05.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2010. He has also submitted that the case of the petitioner is also not covered under the new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 since the case of the petitioner is already rejected. He has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment dated 03.05.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2010. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2472 of 2010 reiterating the aforesaid view. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Appeal No.7702 of 2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2011. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the record of the case. 7. The facts established from the record are that the father of the petitioner died on 04.10.2006. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.10.2006. After the death of his father, his family has received an amount of Rs.5,33,028/- and a monthly amount of Rs.3,443/- is also being paid as family pension. It is pertinent to note that the State Government revised the earlier schemes of compassionate appointment and introduced a new scheme vide Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, in which financial criteria was removed. Thereafter, the scheme was further modified vide Government Resolution dated 07.09.2002 wherein the limitation period of making an application for compassionate appointment was extended from three months to six months. Subsequently, vide Circulars dated 29.03.2007 and 25.04.2008, the scheme was further modified, by which the criteria of qualifications to Class-III and Class-IV was prescribed. The income derived from pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund was also made one of the criteria in examining the case for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 abolished the scheme of compassionate appointment and introduced the scheme of lump-sum compensation. The scheme of compassionate appointment is considered and interpreted by this Court in various judgments and orders. 8. Ultimately, the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 abolished the scheme of compassionate appointment and introduced the scheme of lump-sum compensation. The scheme of compassionate appointment is considered and interpreted by this Court in various judgments and orders. 8. In the judgment dated 03.05.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2010, the Division Bench while examining the case of the Appellant, whose family had received pension and other benefits vis-a-vis the scheme of compassionate appointment dated 10.03.2000 has held thus: "Not only that there is no fundamental right or even a legal right for compassionate appointment, but the policy contained in Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, has clarified in no uncertain terms, that the purpose was to help the bereaved family in the hour of financial crisis and the first condition for eligibility for compassionate appointment is also financial crisis of the dependent family. In the facts of the present case, neither the essential condition for applying the policy was satisfied nor was purpose of the policy likely to be served by offering appointment to the petitioner, under the scheme." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 23.11.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2472 of 2010 has reiterated the aforesaid view. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Appeal No. 7702 of 2011 in the order dated 01.02.2011 has observed thus: "The family pension of the petitioner is admittedly Rs. 5,569/- and the petitioner has got retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 12,61,936/-. The High Court has taken the view that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. In our opinion, no interference is required. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed". 10. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) has expressed its opinion relying on the scheme of the Bank where in the 2005 Scheme providing only for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment was superseded by the Scheme of 2014, which revived the earlier scheme of 2005 providing for compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court has held that right accrued as per the earlier scheme cannot be taken away by way of subsequent scheme. It is further held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. 11. The Supreme Court has held that right accrued as per the earlier scheme cannot be taken away by way of subsequent scheme. It is further held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. 11. In the present case, after the death of father of the petitioner on 04.10.2006, he applied for compassionate appointment on 20.10.2006. The Circulars dated 29.03.2007 and 25.04.2008 laying down the financial criteria were not in existence when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Though, the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the scheme of 10.03.2000 has confirmed the stand taken by the authorities rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that they have received the benefits of family pension and terminal benefits, in my considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra), which is in later point of time will govern the case of the petitioner. Keeping in mind the order date 01.02.2011 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Appeal No. 7702 of 2011 and the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, in my considered opinion, the ratio and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Canara Bank (supra) has the precedent value. The Supreme Court has held that the benefits accrued to family members like family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. This Court in the judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12202 of 2016, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra), in similar set of facts, has directed the authorities to reconsider the case for compassionate appointment. 12. On the bedrock of the aforesaid pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra), in my considered opinion, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied to the legal heir of the deceased employee whose family has received terminal benefits and is also getting family pension. As a consequence, the impugned communication dated 04.03.2010 is quashed and set aside. 13. As a consequence, the impugned communication dated 04.03.2010 is quashed and set aside. 13. At this juncture it will be pertinent to note that by the subsequent amendment, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to accept the lump-sum compensation as per new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 instead of compassionate appointment. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for lump-sum compensation as per new policy framed by Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 (two) months from today. 14. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.