JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned Single, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to reconsider the claim of the respondent – original petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits without taking into consideration the ground and aspect of receipt of family pension and terminal benefits, the respondent is in appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1. The petitioners, are the heirs of the deceased employee Shri Rohitsinh Rathod, who was working as a Clerk with the appellant, died in harness on 17.08.2009. On 09.09.2009, the respondents – original petitioners made an application seeking compassionate appointment. The mother- petitioner No.1 sought appointment of her son, petitioner No.2. By orders dated 04.01.2010 and 21.01.2010, the employer-appellant herein rejected the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the appellant, the case of the respondent’s son did not merit consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds as the family had received an amount of Rs.6,34,806/- towards terminal benefits. Moreover, according to the impugned decision before the learned Single Judge, the family had land, and therefore, the family could sustain itself. The case, therefore, did not merit consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2.2. It appears that, the petitioners made another representation on 15.03.2010 and continued to make such representations in the year 2010. Such representations too came to be rejected by communications dated 22.10.2010 and 24.11.2010, by which, the appellant reiterated its earlier decision. 2.3. Representations were made in the year 2011 i.e. on 11.07.2011, requesting reconsideration of their case or in the alternative for compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that, representations were continuously made in the year 2014 – 2015 and replies were received in July 2015 reaffirming the stand taken in the year 2010. Noteworthy it is to point out that in July 2015 also, the appellant stated that since once by communication dated 04.01.2010 the request was rejected, it did not require reconsideration. 2.4. Taking a cue from the latest rejection, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 12202 of 2016 challenging the aforesaid rejection. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioners relying upon the judgment in the case of Canara Bank and Anr. 2.4. Taking a cue from the latest rejection, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 12202 of 2016 challenging the aforesaid rejection. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioners relying upon the judgment in the case of Canara Bank and Anr. vs. M.Mahesh Kumar [ (2015) 7 SCC 412 ]. 3. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant has accordingly relied upon the fact that the learned Single Judge could not have directed the original respondent-appellant herein to reconsider the case of the original appellants. According to Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants, it was in the Policy of 10.03.2000 that provided for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate grounds without taking into consideration the income of the family of the deceased. Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that, the death of the present employee, whose family was claiming compassionate appointment was on 17.08.2009. Therefore, the Policy that was applicable was not of the year 2000, which gave go-by to the income ceiling. The Policy of 2007, which would govern the case on hand had done away with the exemption of income ceiling and the case of the petitioners was, therefore, required to be considered in accordance with the Policy of 2007 which did not envisage consideration of the ceiling limit. The case, therefore, according to Shri Munshaw required to be governed by the Policy of 2007, being the Policy applicable at the time of death of the employee. 3.1. Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants, relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India And Another vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 , and has specifically drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs Nos. 12 and 13 of the said judgment, which are as under: “12. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, up to the date of consideration may have to be taken in to account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. 13. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. 13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.” 4. Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for the respondents-original petitioners, on the other hand was not in a position to dispute this position of law i.e. that the case is required to be considered as per the Policy invoked i.e. of 2007. However, Mr. Rathod, contended that at least, a direction could be issued to consider the case of the original petitioners – respondents herein for compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following undisputed events emerge: (A) The father of respondent No.2, died in harness on 17.08.2009. (B) The application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 09.09.2009. (C) At the time when such application was made, the Circular of 10.03.2000 which provided that income criteria was not in force. It was the Policy of 2007, which was applicable on the date of death, which nowhere stated that while considering the case for compassionate appointment, income should not be taken into consideration. 6. The question, therefore, as to whether the appointment on compassionate grounds has to be considered viz-a-viz the Policy in force is clearly answered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India And Another vs. Raj Kumar, (supra). In view of this, the learned Single Judge’s direction to reconsider the case of the respondents for appointment without taking into consideration the receipt of family pension and terminal benefits cannot be said to be correct. The Policy of 10.03.2000 should not have been pressed into service when it was the Policy of 2007 that governed the field as the date of death was 17.08.2009. 7. The Policy of 10.03.2000 should not have been pressed into service when it was the Policy of 2007 that governed the field as the date of death was 17.08.2009. 7. Even otherwise, the death occurred on 17.08.2009. The communications impugned in the petition rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate grounds were dated 04.01.2010 and 21.01.2010. The petition was filed in the year 2016, six years after such rejection. Merely because the respondents – original petitioners continued to make representations would in no manner extend the period of limitation. 8. In view of these facts, we see no reason to grant the relief prayed for by the original petitioners in their petition seeking direction of procuring appointment on compassionate grounds. The present Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12202 of 2016 is hereby set aside to the aforesaid extent. In view of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 16109 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.