JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mohinder Pal, J. Petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order passed by the respondents vide which he has been denied compassionate appointment. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that father of the petitioner who was working as Peon cum Driver with Respondent No.3 died on 28.01.2004. Immediately after death of his father, petitioner (son) moved application for compassionate appointment. Mamlatdar forwarded this application to the higher authorities. This application remained pending with the respondents for quite some time. However, vide communication dated 13.01.2005, respondents raised certain queries regarding educational qualifications. Thereafter, in the year 2008, Respondent No.1 i.e. Collector seems to have raised another query, viz. whether the petitioner was possessing the qualification of CCC i.e. Course on Computer Concept. Finally, case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he was not possessing qualification of SSC pass which has given raise for the petitioner to have approached this Court by way of this petition. 3. Respondents have contested this petition by filing reply which is available at page No.34. In their reply, respondents have submitted that respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 24.02.2006 inquired from the deponent whether he was having knowledge of the computer as per requirement of G.R. of GAD dated 13.01.2005 and 24.06.2005. As this information was not supplied by the petitioner, Mamlatdar could not forward his case further to respondent No.1. It is further submitted that as the petitioner was not possessing minimum qualification of SSC pass for class-IV posts, the case was required to be rejected and the same has been rejected by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no such provision regarding qualification of SSC pass in the circular of compassionate appointment which was applicable in case of the petitioner. It has been submitted that this Court vide its decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.12256 of 2012 dated 10.07.2018 has held that policy which was prevalent at the time of death of an employee who died in harness has to be applied and not the subsequent policy of the State Government. As father of the petitioner has died on 28.01.2004, the policy of 10.03.2000 was applicable, according to which, the minimum qualification required entry into class-IV service is 4th standard pass and not SSC. 5. As father of the petitioner has died on 28.01.2004, the policy of 10.03.2000 was applicable, according to which, the minimum qualification required entry into class-IV service is 4th standard pass and not SSC. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP has reiterated the submissions made in the written statement and has submitted that petitioner was not possessing the required qualification of SSC pass and this case has been rightly rejected by the Collector. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. Father of the petitioner while working as Peon cum Driver has died on 28.01.2004. Immediately, on the next day, petitioner, being son of the deceased, has moved an application for compassionate appointment to the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar kept this application pending with him for 2 years. However, on 13.01.2005, he inquired about educational qualification of the petitioner. At that time, petitioner has passed 7th Standard examination. In the year 2008, respondent No.1 further put certain queries whether the petitioner was possessing the CCC certificate (Course of Computer Concept). Petitioner seems to have replied this query by submitting that completion of aforementioned course was not requirement for class-IV post. However, case of the petitioner has been finally rejected on 08.01.2010. 7. The dispute between the parties is on the point that which policy should be applicable in this case i.e. policy of 2000, according to which, the qualification for 4th Standard pass or the policy of the year 2005 vide which the qualification has been increased from standard 4 to SSC pass. 8. It is settled law that the policy which was prevailing at the time of death of an employee will be applicable as far as compassionate appointment is concerned. Reference could be made to the case of General Manager (Admn) & PIO O/O C.G.M.T. & Anr. V/s. Vishalsingh B.Jadeja and Anr., (2011) 3 GLH 6, while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court has held that, if a person claims compassionate appointment, then the policy for compassionate appointment which was prevailing at the time of death of the employee who died in harness, has to be applied and not the subsequent. 9. The action of the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not sufficiently qualified on the relevant date was a wrong decision. 9. The action of the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not sufficiently qualified on the relevant date was a wrong decision. It is particularly so, when father of the petitioner has died on 28.01.2004 and policy of 10.03.2000 was applicable and as per this policy, minimum qualification required for entry into class-IV service was standard 4th pass and not SSC. 10. During the course of the argument, learned AGP has also pointed out that family of the deceased has been paid sufficient amount after the death of father of the petitioner and under these circumstances, compassionate appointment can be denied to the petitioner. 11. This Court has considered the aforementioned submissions of learned AGP. However, these are contrary to the judgments given by this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court and it has been held that amounts paid to the family as dues of the deceased or the family pension cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the income of the family. 12. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is entitled to be appointed as class-IV employee, if otherwise fulfills the requisite requirement except age limit as he might have crossed the maximum age limit while this petition has remained pending before this Court for about 8 years. Respondent will consider case of the petitioner for appointment on next available vacancy with them. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.