ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 09.08.2017 dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No.507 of 2017 filed by the appellant. Appellant was convicted on 11.10.1993 in Sessions Trial No.9 of 1992 and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 3. The State Government after completion of 18 years of custody considered the case of the appellant for remission. By letter dated 15.02.2017, Government communicated that premature release of the appellant can be considered after completion of 26 years of sentence with all exemptions, subject to the condition of his good behaviour in the jail till his release. The State Government in the order dated 15.02.2017, which has been brought on record as Annexure P-9, has referred to the guidelines of the Government order dated 15.03.2010 as well as the Government letter dated 11.05.1992. Challenging the said order, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court which has been decided on 09.08.2017. The High Court while deciding the writ petition has relied on judgment of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 . The High Court has affirmed the order of the State Government observing that the State Government while considering the case of the appellant has kept in view the guidelines, which were in force in the year 1992 guidelines, and also the guidelines for premature release under the 14 year Rule of Prisoners serving life sentence i.e. the guidelines of the year 2010. Finding no fault with the order of the State Government, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contents that this Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (supra), in paragraph 54, has laid down that in case a liberal policy from the date of consideration of the case of lifer for premature release, the convict should get benefit of that policy. It is further submitted that the State Government while rejecting the case of the appellant has relied on the Government order dated 15.03.2010 category 4(e) which was not applicable and the category which was applicable in the present case was category 3(b). It is further submitted that the State Government while rejecting the case of the appellant has relied on the Government order dated 15.03.2010 category 4(e) which was not applicable and the category which was applicable in the present case was category 3(b). Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of conviction the guidelines which were in force was dated 18.12.1987 under which in Clause 2(b) the period of imprisonment to be undergone for remission was 24 years. He submitted that in view of the subsequent guidelines dated 15.03.2010, which are more favourable, providing for consideration on completion of 22 years, the said guidelines ought to have been accepted. He further submitted that High Court committed error in referring the case of the appellant in wrong categorization i.e. 4(e). 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the guidelines only permit consideration of the case of conviction, there is no fundamental right in a convict to claim remission as a right. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The guidelines which have been referred to in by the High Court for consideration are 15.03.2010, Annexure P/6, which provides for category 3(b) and category 4(e) which are relevant in the present case are extracted below: Category No. Sub category Categorisation of Crime Period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions subject to a minimum of 14 years of Actual Imprisonment including Set-off period 3. Murder arising out of Land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition b. Crime committed as above with premeditation, either individually or by a gang. 22 years 4. Murder for other reasons e. Murder committed with exceptional violence/ brutality/kidnapping; Murders committed by dacoits and robbers in the act of committing dacoity and robberies; Murders committed by bootleggers, gamblers, flesh traders etc 26 years 8. With regard to submission of the appellant on the categorization, the High Court made following observation in paragraph 7: "7. So far categorization of the convict under the guidelines formulated by the State Government in its policy are concerned, the convict has no fundamental right to assert, though argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, and it is for the State Government to formulate the policy prescribing the guidelines keeping in view the provisions of Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not also the case of the petitioner that while treating other convict similarly situated like him, and against whom the offences were registered before the Guidelines of the Year 1992 were brought into force, are differently treated vis-a-vis the petitioner, and there is discrimination." 9. There cannot be any quarrel to the proposition that it is for the State Government to formulate guidelines as per its policy and there is no fundamental right in a convict to claim remission. However, when a policy is formulated, every convict is entitled for consideration of his case. In this context, we refer to paragraph 54 of the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (surpa): "54. The State authority is under an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that his case for premature release would be considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer" for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof." 10. From the above, it is clear that the guidelines, which were in force at the time of conviction of the accused or any guidelines which are placed at the time of consideration of case for remission, the policy which is more liberal had to be looked into while considering the case of remission. A perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge indicates that the genesis of the dispute was yield from agricultural land and in above view of the matter as per guidelines dated 15.03.2010, the category under which the case can be put is category 3(b). Category 4(e) which was referred to by the State Government while rejecting the remission application does not appear to apply in facts of the present case. 11. Category 4(e) which was referred to by the State Government while rejecting the remission application does not appear to apply in facts of the present case. 11. We are, thus, of the view that the matter need a fresh consideration by the State Government in accordance with the relevant guidelines for claim of remission of the appellant. In result, we set-aside the order of the State Government dated 15.02.2017 and direct the State Government to consider the claim of the appellant afresh, as per the guidelines in force with regard to claim of remission on its own merits, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.