JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 3rd February, 2011 whereby, the respondent-State has rejected the proposal of the Junagadh District Panchayat-respondent No.2 for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate appointment on the ground of the financial condition of the family of the present petitioner. 2. The brief case of this petition is as under :- 3. The mother of the present petitioner was serving as Health Visitor in Primary Health Centre at Sardargadh, Tal. Manavadar under the control of the Junagadh District Panchayat. She expired on 12th June, 2004. The petitioner being the eligible and qualified dependent of deceased Saralaben, applied for his appointment on any post of Class III on compassionate grounds on 24th June, 2004. 4. Thereafter, the State Government called for an opinion from the respondent No.2 with regard to economic condition of the family of the petitioner vide communication dated 23rd August, 2007. On 15th February, 2008, after considering the Government Circular dated 29th March, 2007, the respondent No.1 has rejected the proposal of the Junagadh District Panchayat proposing the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground for the reason, that the family of the deceased Saralaben cannot be considered to be in harness or pitiable economic condition, as the service benefits worth about Rs.12.5 lacs and family pension has been remitted. 5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9206 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 17th September, 2008 quashing the setting aside the communication dated 15th February, 2008, and the respondent-authorities were directed to consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the policy that was prevailing on the of date of application and pass necessary order thereof. 6. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Division Bench being Letter Patent Appeal No. 1931 of 2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 15th July, 2011. 7. After the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 once again rejected the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on compassionate ground, repeating, the same ground as mentioned in the earlier order dated 15th February, 2008. 8. Hence, the petitioner is again construed to file the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 3rd December, 2011. 9. Mr. 7. After the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 once again rejected the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on compassionate ground, repeating, the same ground as mentioned in the earlier order dated 15th February, 2008. 8. Hence, the petitioner is again construed to file the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 3rd December, 2011. 9. Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has, repeated the same stand, despite the order of setting aside the impugned communication dated 15.2.2008, which was the subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 9206 of 2008. He has submitted that the respondent has merely repeated the facts of the earlier order and has rejected the case of the present petitioner reiterating the same ground. 10. Mr. Mehta has also submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Maheshkumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 , the respondents-authorities cannot take in to consideration the monetory benefits which are received by the members of the deceased family, after death of the Government employee. In view of this submission, Mr. Mehta has urged that the present writ petition may be allowed with cost. 11. Per contra Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned AGP submitted that the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered by this Court. Placing reliance on his affidavit Mr. Dabhi, has also submitted that the family of the petitioner has already received the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- after the demise of his mother and hence, the family cannot be said to be in a pitiable condition, which needs aid of a compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Dabhi, learned AGP has placed the reliance of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of Union of India and another Vs. B. Kishore reported in (2011) 13 SCC 131 and has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 . 13. Mr. H.S. Munshaw has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned AGP and also places reliance on his application. 14. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties at length. 15. Raj Kumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 . 13. Mr. H.S. Munshaw has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned AGP and also places reliance on his application. 14. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties at length. 15. The petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment by his application dated 24th June, 2004. After calling for necessary information, his request for compassionate appointment was initially rejected vide order dated 15th February, 2008 placing reliance on the Circular dated 29th March, 2007 wherein it is stated that the family members of the deceased who have received the monetary benefits after his demise, cannot be considered for granted compassionate appointment. The aforesaid order was quashed and set-aside by this Court vide order dated 17th September, 2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9206 of 2008 wherein the Court had directed the respondent -authorities to examine the case of the present petitioner in light of the policy that was prevailing on the date of the application and pass necessary orders thereof. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1931 of 2009 challenging the aforesaid order was also dismissed. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 3rd December, 2011, the petitioner is again denied the compassionate appointment reiterating the same ground except that while rejecting his case they have relied upon the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. 16. Thus by both the orders, the sole ground on which the case of petitioner is rejected, is that his family has received the terminal benefits which comprise of pension, GPF amount, leave encashment, group insurance and post insurance. The Apex Court in the case of M.Maheshkumar (supra) after considering various judgments on the issue including the B.Kihsore(supra) and Rajkumar(supra), relied upon by the learned AGP, the Apex Court has observed thus: “16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. V. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:- 17. "13. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:- 17. "13. ....But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." 18. Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd. case, [ 2000 (6) SCC 493 ] High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.” 17. Thus, the terminal benefits received by the petitioner after the demise of his mother cannot be considered in view of the afore-noted observations made by the Apex Court. 18. This Court in the judgment dt.4.10.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16797 of 2011, dated 4.10.2017, after considering the relevant provisions of various resolutions including the resolution dt.10.3.2000, on an identical issue has quashed and set aside the order refusing the compassionate appointment on the ground of monetory benefits received by the family of the deceased family. 19. In view of the foregoing observations, the impugned communication dt.3.2.2011 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ignoring the financial benefits as mentioned in the impugned order, and if he fulfills the requisite qualification to the post for which he is to be appointed, then necessary order appointing him shall be passed forthwith. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. 20. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. 20. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.