JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents refusing to grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he has not moved an application within a period of three months from the date of attaining majority and that the income of the family was more than what was required in the policy. 2. Father of the petitioner was serving as a Beat Guard in the Range Forest Office under the respondent No.1 who died on 17.04.2002 while in service. On 03.06.2002, the petitioner gave an application to the respondent No.1 for compassionate appointment along with all the required documents. Mother of the petitioner also gave an application on 30.04.2005 for compassionate appointment. At the time of first application, the petitioner was minor. Respondent No.1 on 06.08.2005, replied to the petitioner that as the application for compassionate appointment filed by the mother of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of death of the father of the petitioner, he may not be given this appointment. Aggrieved from this decision, present petition has been field. 3. After notice, the respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has moved an application on 03.06.2002. At that time, the petitioner was not bearing minimum required age for appointment. The mother of the petitioner gave an application on 30.03.2005 which was time barred. As per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, the petitioner was required to move application within a period of six months from the date of death of his father. As the application was filed beyond the period of three months, it became time barred and as such, has been rightly rejected by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has duly moved application on 03.06.2002 which was kept pending by the respondents as petitioner was minor at that time. According to him, once the application has remained pending with the respondents, there was no reason to reject the same on the ground that the application is not moved within the prescribed period of three months. According to him, once the application has remained pending with the respondents, there was no reason to reject the same on the ground that the application is not moved within the prescribed period of three months. He has further argued that time limit of three months has been further modified to two years which is clear from the earlier judgment of this Court passed in the case of Chandrasinh Gohil V/s Additional Director General of Police and Anr.- 2007 (3) GLH 313 . He has also referred to the decision given by this Court on 27.11.2017 in Special Civil Application No.10879 of 2008 in the case of Dineshbhai Babubhai Chamar V/s District Superintendent of Police and 2. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has relied upon the Policy of 2000 and has contended that the petitioner was required to move an application within a period of three months from the date of death of his father. Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9399 of 2007, wherein, this Court has directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per the policy dated 10.03.2000. As per this policy, this application was required to be moved within a period of three months from the date of death of his father and as the second application was beyond limitation, it is rightly rejected by the respondents. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. The father of the petitioner has died on 17.04.2002 while in service. The application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner has been moved on 03.06.2002 which was within the prescribed limit of three months. This application has remained pending with the respondents, as the petitioner was minor at that time. Finally, the respondents by impugned order has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, as according to them, this application was required to be moved within a period of three months from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. 7. The respondents seems to have lost sight of the fact that the application moved by the petitioner dated 03.06.2002 has remained pending with the respondents and was still pending when the minor has attained majority. 7. The respondents seems to have lost sight of the fact that the application moved by the petitioner dated 03.06.2002 has remained pending with the respondents and was still pending when the minor has attained majority. As per the initial circular, dependents of the deceased were required to move an application within a period of three months from the date of his death. However, this policy has been modified in the year 2000 itself wherein, three months period has been substituted by two years and as per the amended policy, if the wards of the deceased were minor at the time of death, they can apply for compassionate appointment within a period of two years from the date of attaining majority. A reference to this amendment is apparent in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph No.8 of the decision in the case of Chandrasinh gohil V/s Additional Director General of Police and Anr.- 2007 (3) GLH 313 is reproduced as under: “8. Therefore, in view of these provisions of item no.8 clause (B) referred to above, in case if the member of the dependent family is minor at the time of death of concerned Government employee, then, it is necessary for the authority to wait till such minor member of dependent family becomes major and in view of that rejection of application on the ground that the petitioner was not major at the time of death of his father is not sustainable as per the provisions of the policy dated 10.3.2000. It is not the case of the respondent authority that the case of the petitioner is not covered by policy dated 10.3.2000. Clarification made by the State Government in 2000 itself is providing that if the member of the dependent family was minor at the time of death of his father or mother or as the case may be, then, it is necessary for such dependent to make such application within the period of two years from the date on which he attains majority. In this case, respondents have not pointed out before this Court that such application was made by the petitioner beyond two years from the date of his attaining the age of majority. In this case, respondents have not pointed out before this Court that such application was made by the petitioner beyond two years from the date of his attaining the age of majority. In view of the aforesaid provisions of item 8 Clause (B) of the policy dated 10.3.2000, respondents are not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he had not become major at the time of death of his father but the respondents shall have to consider the case of such dependent who become major at the relevant time when his application was being considered....” 8. It is also the case of the respondents that mother was eligible for the appointment at the relevant point of time but she did not move an application for compassionate appointment. As per amendment, if wife of the deceased was not willing to get the appointment and other dependents are minor at that time, they can apply for appointment within a period of two years from the date of attaining majority. 9. Another ground taken by the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner pertains to the family income. The income drived by the petitioner from the pension and gratuity etc. was not required to be considered for the grant of compassionate appointment. This Court in its earlier decision passed in the case of Dineshbhai Babubhai Chamar V.s District Superintendent of Police and 2, under similar circumstance have directed the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased who attained majority after few years of death of his father. The facts of the aforesaid mentioned case are similar to the present petition. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussion this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if otherwise found eligible as per the law. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed off. Rule is made absolute.