ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. (I) Petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing the order dated 07.05.2010 contained in Memo No. 706 (Annex.5) passed by the respondent No. 7 whereby the respondent No. 7 has refused to consider for appointment on compassionate ground totally ignoring the several orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions. (II) Direction to the respondents to consider the appointment on compassionate ground as the husband of the petitioner died in accident while on duty. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner is the first wife of Late Mahendra Prasad Mehta, Home Guard Volunteer, who died in a road accident along with his comember Sahdeo Prasad Mehta on 28.01.2006 while he was on duty. The details of the family members of the husband of the petitioner as per the report dated 09.09.2007 submitted by the respondent No. 5 is annexed at Annex. 2 to the writ application. It is alleged that the petitioner as well as the second wife Chinta Devi represented to the respondents for compassionate appointment as well as the other benefits but the respondents failed to provide any relief. It is further alleged that one similarly situated person Karuna Devi, dependents of home guard volunteers, who died in the same accident filed W.P.(S) No.4589 of 2006 before this Hon'ble Court and her case was considered for compassionate appointment in view of the order dated 30.11.2006, which is marked as Annex. 3 to the writ application. It was held by this Hon'ble Court that the dependents of Home Guard Volunteers, who died in accident while on public duty are entitled for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid order was passed based on the earlier orders passed in Gayatri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 and Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 257 . The second wife namely, Chinta Devi has filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4591 of 2006 without impleading the petitioner as a party, has been dismissed for default and no orders were passed. reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 and Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 257 . The second wife namely, Chinta Devi has filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4591 of 2006 without impleading the petitioner as a party, has been dismissed for default and no orders were passed. The present petitioner filed a petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 5187 of 2007 impleading the second wife Chinta Devi as a party but she failed to appear in spite of service of notice and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and also regarding the entitlement of other claims and release the same. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner approached to the respondents-authorities but the claim was rejected on the ground that Home Guard Volunteers, who died in accident other than naxal activism are not entitled for compassionate appointment vide Memo No. 706 dated 07.05.2010. Hence, this writ application has been filed. 4. Mr. R.A. Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner in contrary to the several orders passed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the action of the respondents-authorities are contemptuous in view of the fact that a specific order has been passed in WPS No. 5187 of 2007, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 519 of 2010 dated 06.07.2011. The case of the petitioner is in teeth of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the judicial pronouncement, Annex. 5 to the writ application is not tenable in the eyes of law and fit to be quashed and set aside and the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the scheme floated by the Government as Home Department’s Resolution No. 868 dated 01.09.1999 wherein it has been mentioned that in case of normal death while on duty, is only entitled to exgratia compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and there is no provision of giving compassionate appointment in such cases. The prayer of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner was Home Guard Volunteers and is not a Govt. servant and as such, is not entitled for any benefit applicable to the employees of State Govt. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 contained in Memo No. 706 (Annex.5) is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, is fit to be quashed and set aside on the following ground: (I) Issue regarding the consideration of Home Guard for compassionate appointment is no more res integra as the same has been decided in catena of decisions, in the cases of Gayatri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 , Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 257 and in WPS No. 4589 of 2006 Most. Taruna Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand decided on 30.11.2006. (II) Moreover, when the petitioner has approached this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 5187 of 2007 decided on 08.04.2010, this Court observed that : Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to assess the amount of compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased Home Guard Volunteer while discharging the duty, in accordance with the scheme floated by the Government in such eventuality, within a period of one months from the date of this order and on being satisfied about the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim the entitlement of the benefits of the scheme as the surviving legal heir and representative of deceased employee, shall pay the same to her. The respondents shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/Scheme in such cases. The respondents shall also consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the benefits reserved under the Government policy/Scheme in such cases. This Court in WPS No. 4589 of 2006 disposed on 30.11.2006 held that “in any case, this Court has already interpreted the nature of the appointment of Home Guard Volunteers and held that they are public servants while performing the duties and, thus, in the event of death of a Home Guard Volunteers, his dependent will be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.” One Daji Mishra, dependants of deceased Home Guard also moved this Court for payment of ex gratia compensation to the widow and also for appointment on compassionate ground, which was allowed vide order dated 13.05.2010, relying on the earlier orders passed in WPS No. 6335 of 2007; 2008 (3) JLJR 353 (Salwa Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., WPS No. 1390 of 2006 ( Chanda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and also in case of Gaytri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 132 , the said order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No. 519 of 2010, which was dismissed and the same was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.07.2012. 7. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, I am of the considered view that the issue involved in the writ application is now, no more res integra and the respondent-authorities in complete violation of the law of the land settled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2010. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid settled principles of law, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 is not tenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 is quashed and set aside, the writ petition stands allowed. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass order of appointment on compassionate ground in view of the aforesaid legal proposition and also consider for grant of ex gratia payment, which is not done till date, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Order. 10. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass order of appointment on compassionate ground in view of the aforesaid legal proposition and also consider for grant of ex gratia payment, which is not done till date, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Order. 10. It is made clear that since already this Court has passed an order for ex gratia payment and for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the settled principles of law as discussed above and affirmed up to Hon'ble Apex Court, if the order of this Court is not complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Order, sou motu contempt will be initiated against the erring Officers.