JUDGMENT : M.R SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11793 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the respondents herein and has directed the appellant herein to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of his second application i.e June 18, 2012, the original respondents have preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the father of the petitioner who was serving as driver died in road accident in the year 1980. At the relevant the respondent herein - original petitioner was two years of age only. He attained the age of majority in the year 1996. That in the year 2003, for the’ first time, the original petitioner submitted the application on 10.07.2003 for appointment on compassionate ground. In continuance, further application was made on 18.06.2012. In the mean time, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground came me, to be modified vide Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and instead of offering the appointment, it was resolved to grant financial lump sum assistance. The original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 1665 of 2015 before this Court with a prayer to grant financial lump sum assistant to him as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, in lieu of compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge disposed of the aforesaid Special Civil Application permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application in prescribed form. It appears that the petitioner made fresh application on 15.4.2015 The said application dated 15.4.2015 came to be rejected vide order dated 1.6.2015 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 1.6.2015 before this Court by way of present Special Civil Application No. 11793 of 2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and has directed the appellants to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of his second application i.e June 18, 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and has directed the appellants to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of his second application i.e June 18, 2012. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original respondents have preferred present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patnet Appeal. 3. Shri Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned advocate for the original respondent. 4. Shri Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in allowing the petition and directing the appellants to pay to the original petitioner lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and that too applying subsequent resolution/scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that even the first application submitted by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground itself was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that deceased employee died in the year 1980. The original petitioner attained the age of majority on 1.10.1986 For the first time, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made in the year 2003. It is submitted that therefore, there was a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled any relief as claimed. 6. It is submitted by Shri Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants that as such in the meantime and subsequently there was a drastically changed in the policy for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that there was subsequent policy shall not be applicable in the case of the petitioner in whose case the cause of action to file the application for appointment on compassionate ground arise in the year 1996/1997. It is submitted that there was subsequent policy shall not be applicable in the case of the petitioner in whose case the cause of action to file the application for appointment on compassionate ground arise in the year 1996/1997. It is submitted that therefore, learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the appellants to pay lump sum compensation to the original petitioner applying the subsequent scheme which came into force in the year 2011/2015. It is submitted that the subsequent scheme ought not to have been applied in the present case and what was required to be considered was the policy prevailing in the year 1980/1996. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is as such contrary to the scheme and object of appointment on compassionate ground to give relief to the family members of the deceased employee who died in harness and to give immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee who might have suffered due to untimely death of the deceased employee. 7. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned advocate for the original petitioner. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the original petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in directing the appellants to pay lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the original petitioner considering the subsequent scheme/resolution. 9. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the original petitioner that as such the day on which the new scheme came to be introduced, the applications submitted by the petitioner submitted in the year 2012/2015 were pending. It is submitted that therefore, as per the Government Resolution/new scheme shall be applicable in case of all pending applications, pending as on 5.7.2011 and/or the subsequent resolutions if any. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the appellants to pay lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 10. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in directing the appellants to pay lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 10. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Budhabhai A. Chavda reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1236 , it is vehemently submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the original petitioner that in fact at the relevant time the authorities failed to perform their duty to inform the petitioner about his right to make an application for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, when the authorities itself failed to perform his duty (as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision) thereafter it will not be open for the appellants to take plea/defence of delay and laches. 11. Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the original petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Commissioner v. Bhavnaben Kanveshkumar Raval rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 475 of 2016, by which, according to the learned advocate for the original petitioners, in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed i Special Civil Application No. 13428 of 2012, by which, the learned Single Judge has directed to grant compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the scheme of the government issued on 5.7.2011 with interest. 5. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 12. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee who died in harness. The object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee who lost the bread earner untimely and all of sudden. Therefore, the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief and not at any time after number of years. The object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee who lost the bread earner untimely and all of sudden. Therefore, the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to give immediate relief and not at any time after number of years. Considering the aforesaid object and purpose of scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, the facts in the present appeal are required to be considered. 13. It is an admitted position that the deceased employee died in the year 1980. It is also an admitted position that the original petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 1996. It is also an admitted position that for the first time application for appointment on compassionate ground is made in the year 2003. Thereafter, nothing was done. Thereafter, again the application was made in the year 2012 to get the benefit of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 i.e for lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. At this stages required to be noted that on and after 2011, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground came to be modified and and instead of appointment, it was decided to grant lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. That thereafter, again petitioner made application in the year 2015, which came to be rejected. Despite the above, by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to grant lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the original petitioner applying/considering the scheme contained in Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 How in a case where deceased died in 1980, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 1996, the subsequent scheme of 2011 shall be applicable. Initial application submitted by the petitioner, which was submitted for the first time in the year 2003 itself is barred by delay and laches. It appears that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order on the ground that the application submitted by the original petitioner was pending. However, all applications which are pending as on 5.7.2011 the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, cannot be given. It appears that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order on the ground that the application submitted by the original petitioner was pending. However, all applications which are pending as on 5.7.2011 the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, cannot be given. In a given case, it may happen that after a period of 20 years, the application is made in 2010-2011 itself and the application is pending, we afraid still concerned applicant will be entitled to benefit of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 solely on the ground that as on 5.7.2011 his application is pending. What is required to be considered is whether the application which was pending was in fact worth consideration and/or entertain able or not. If the application which might have been pending on 5.7.2011 either was not maintainable and/or entertain able on any ground including the ground of delay and laches, in such case the benefit of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 cannot be granted. Under the circumstances, learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the appellants to pay lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the original petitioner and that too with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of subsequent application i.e 2012. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely contrary and/or against the object, scheme and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein original petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate appointment. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely contrary and/or against the object, scheme and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant herein original petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate appointment. The scheme for appointment on compassionate ground has been elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even this Court in catena of decisions, more particularly in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 ; in the case of Union of India v. B. Kishore, reported in (2011) 4 Scale 298 ; in the case of State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 448 ; in the case of State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 , in the case of State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 as well as in the case of Union of India v. Shashant Goswamy, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307 . In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that as such, the appointment on compassionate ground is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be a source for regular recruitment. It is also held that appointment on compassionate ground is required to be offered only in a case where it is found that the deceased has died in harness and with a view to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased employee and it cannot be granted by passage of time. 15. In the case of Shashant Goswami (supra) in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and has held as under: “9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.” 16. In the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6, has observed and held as under:— 6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost his bread-earner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian ground. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for year. 17. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Budhabhai A. Chavda (supra) is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly, when the first application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2003 itself was barred by delay and laches. Considering the object and purpose of scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, the delay and laches play vital role. 18. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhavnaben Manveshkumar Raval, relied upon by the learned advocate for the original petitioner is concerned, as such on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Division Bench husband of the original petitioner died on 1.8.2008 and she submitted the application on 30.11.2009 i.e within the period of one year and two months. In the present case, as observed herein above, even after original petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 1996, the original petitioner for the first time submitted application in the year 20003 i.e after a period of approximately 7 years and thereafter nothing further was done and the second application was submitted in the year 2012. Under the circumstance, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 19. In view of the above aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11793 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 20. No costs. 21. 19. In view of the above aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11793 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 20. No costs. 21. In view of disposal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.