JUDGMENT : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appellant, original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2927 of 2012, and an aspirant to be appointed as Class-IV employee in respondent No. 2 authority on the basis of the policy prevailing when his father died in harness in the year 2006, has taken out this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 challenging the judgment and order dated 16-7-2012, dismissing the said on the ground that the petitioner's application had been rejected in the year 2006, and again it was rejected in the year 2009, and despite such rejection no challenge was taken out and it was only in the year 2012 the petition was filed. On account of inordinate delay, the petition was rejected giving rise to filing of this appeal as stated above. 2. The facts shorn off unnecessary details and required to examine the controversy and challenge, deserves to be set out as under : 2.1. The appellant's father - an Education Inspector in Mid-day Meals Scheme working at Jasdan passed away in harness on 23-3-2006. The appellant, as per prevailing policy and scheme of offering compassionate appointment to the heirs of the deceased employee died in harness, applied for compassionate appointment in Class-IV post on 19-6-2006. The concerned respondent on 7-10-2006 rejected the same on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 19-7-2006 indicating therein that the Class-IV posts are to be filled in only by candidates having S.S.C.E. qualification. The appellant has acquired such qualification in the examination held in July, 2009 and based thereupon submitted his application for reconsideration of his case. The appellant's attempt failed. The appellant had passed thereafter H.S.C. examination in the year 2011. The appellant was expecting that as his application was of 19-6-2006, the Government Resolution dated 19-7-2006 could not have been held out against him for rejecting his candidature for Class-IV services. The appellant has averred in the petition that similar case of one Shri Dhirajlal Somabhai Bavadia was considered by the respondent and he was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 8-1-2012 issued by respondent No.1. The appellant has averred in the petition that similar case of one Shri Dhirajlal Somabhai Bavadia was considered by the respondent and he was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 8-1-2012 issued by respondent No.1. Father of Shri Dhirajlal Somabhai Bavadia was died on 13-10-2004 and request for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 10-9-2007 and it was challenged in the Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 13094 of 2009 and on 22-3-2010, the Court allowed the same and directed that respondents were to reconsider the representation keeping in mind Clause 5(c)(4) of the Annexure 1 of revised plan of compassionate appointment for the post of Hamal or Sweeper or Water-server or Cleaner in accordance with law. Thereafter, appeal filed by respondents being Letters Patent Appeal No. 872 of 2011 was dismissed on 20-6-2011 and he was granted appointment. As the petitioner was not granted the appointment, the petition was filed which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16-7-2012, which is impugned in this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent were not justified in rejecting his application by taking into consideration the subsequent amendment of minimum qualification of passing S.S.C.E., which was pressed into service. At the relevant time, the requisite minimum qualification being 8th Standard pass was filled in by the petitioner and it has not been questioned by anyone. Not challenging the earlier orders of 7-10-2006 and 19-9-2009 could not have been said to be on account of any laches and delay that too inordinate as furnishing ground for dismissing the petition. The appellant was all along pursuing the remedy and was also all along grappling with the situation for qualifying him so that the policy and its resultant benefits may be availed by him in due course. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that after rejection of the application in the year 2006, the appellant pursued his studies and acquired qualification of S.S.C.E. to become qualified for Class-IV employment. He submitted that after acquiring such educational qualification, the appellant once again applied for reconsideration for appointment to Class-IV employment on compassionate ground, but the same was rejected on the ground that 2006 application was already rejected and there is no provision for reconsideration. He submitted that after acquiring such educational qualification, the appellant once again applied for reconsideration for appointment to Class-IV employment on compassionate ground, but the same was rejected on the ground that 2006 application was already rejected and there is no provision for reconsideration. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that appellant had given up his claim for being appointed as Class-IV employee on compassionate ground. 3.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant is relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in AIR 2015 SC 2411 and invited Court's attention to the relevant Paragraphs thereof in support of his submissions, which is as under : "13. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent's father died on 10-10-1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-Bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme, 'Dying in Harness Scheme' dated 8-5-1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-Bank rejected the respondent's claim on 30-6-1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7-11-2001, the appellant-Bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent's employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the Circular No. 154 of 1993 dated 8-5-1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur's case, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 414, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Scheme providing for ex-gratia payment. The Circular dated 14-2-2005 being an administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective effect so as to take away the right accrued to the respondent as per Circular of 1993." 4. The learned A.G.P. Mr. Dhawan Jaiswal for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent No.2 have jointly contended that the appellant did not challenge the earlier rejection order dated 7-10-2006, when the appellant was categorically informed that his candidature for compassionate appointment cannot be considered on account of he being not eligible as per recruitment rules of 19-7-2006. The appellant had therefore, sufficient time and knowledge for challenging the said decision. The appellant had therefore, sufficient time and knowledge for challenging the said decision. The appellant, however appears to have accepted the same and attempted to acquire higher qualification so that he can prove his case as per amended recruitment rules. However, his subsequent application was also rejected vide order dated 19-9-2009. This would clearly indicate that even this second rejection also was not challenged till the year 2012. Therefore, appellant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the State Government had in fact introduced the policy for enhancing the recruitment standards and, therefore, way back on 16-3-2005 by way of Notification by General Administrative Department for Secretariat and non-Secretariat services, the minimum requirement for recruitment so far as Class-IV posts are concerned in fact upgraded to S.S.C.E. pass and that the same was subsequently adopted by the Panchayat Department as can be seen from the Government Resolution dated 19-7-2006. Therefore, when the appellant's father died in harness it can well be said that the policy of the State Government was clear for Class-IV services which could not have permitted the appellant to be appointed, so far as Class-IV services are concerned. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the principle covering the compassionate appointment would also preclude this Court not to grant any relief in such proceedings as the very principle of helping the family of employee dying in harness in distress cannot be said to be justified appointment at a belated stage. The Court may appreciate the fact that the employee died in the year 2006 and the relief if granted would be in the year 2019, passage of time is sufficient to defeat the cause, if exists, in favour of the appellant and, therefore, on this ground also, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that object for the compassionate appointment is to extend financial assistance to the family of the Government servant and it can never be claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, rejection of the application may not be interfered with, at this stage. 8. The Court has heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the papers. Therefore, rejection of the application may not be interfered with, at this stage. 8. The Court has heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the papers. The following few indisputable aspect emerging therefrom deserves to be set out for appreciating it in proper perspective are as under : (i) The appellant's father died in harness on 23-3-2006. It is not disputed by anyone that at the relevant time for offering compassionate appointment to one of the dependents was very much invoked and it was available to all such cases. (ii) The appellant was 8th Standard pass and was eligible to be appointed in Class-IV services even as per the policy prevalent and as per educational qualification required. (iii) The appellant's application was lodged on 19-6-2006. It is nowhere in the proceedings established by the respondents that on 19-6-2006, the appellant lacked in any manner in minimum educational qualification and entitlement on account of policy prevailed. In other words, it can be said that on 19-6-2006 appellant was availing all the quality for being appointed as Class-IV employee on the basis of the then prevailing policy for compassionate appointment. (iv) The appellant has applied in time and in consonance with prevailing policy as he was fulfilling all the requisite criteria and the basis on which the application for appointment in Class-IV services was rejected are wholly untenable and unjust ground of lacking educational qualification when the immediate employer of the deceased employee i.e. respondent No.2 had recommended for appointment. The change in the educational qualification for first time, so far as Panchayat services is concerned was came into picture on 19-7-2006, meaning thereby, when the employee died in harness and when the appellant applied for the post, he was absolutely eligible in Class-IV services on the basis of compassionate appointment. (v) The authority therefore pressed into service the subsequent amendment rules for denying appointment to the appellant his appointment in Class-IV services on the basis of the compassionate appointment. (vi) The appellant attended higher qualification of passing S.S.C.E. and H.S.C.E. and re-applied for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post, but without any avail so far in compassionate appointment in the year 2009, when the respondents have rejected the same on the ground that no reconsideration is permissible as per the policy. (vi) The appellant attended higher qualification of passing S.S.C.E. and H.S.C.E. and re-applied for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post, but without any avail so far in compassionate appointment in the year 2009, when the respondents have rejected the same on the ground that no reconsideration is permissible as per the policy. (vii) The appellant has cited an instance of similarly situated member of other Government employee who also was similarly situated when there also, employee died in harness whose heir was denied the compassionate appointment, and thereafter, appointed when their Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. (viii) The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted any relief on account of he being guilty of delay and laches. 9. The Court is called upon to examine the order of learned Single Judge as well as those two impugned orders against aforesaid factual aspects. The fact remains to be noted that the appellant had not challenged the orders of his rejection of the year 2006 and 2009 till 2012, but the fact and circumstances as narrated in the petition has remained uncontroverted in our view does not constitute any complacency or essence of giving up his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The concept of delay and laches is not the concept which prevents the Court from appreciating the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the instant case, the Court is mindful of the fact that the appellant has not challenged the order of 2006 or 2009 till 2012. It may appear to be a delayed challenge. But facts and circumstances of the case and when the similarly situated person's case being considered after he being held eligible, would go to indicate that the appellant could not have been denied the remedy available to him for enforcing his right, as we are of the clear opinion that the compassionate appointment was a right as it was in fact made available to all similarly situated persons on account of policy prevailed in the State at the relevant time. The Art. 14 of the Constitution of India comes into action and the appellant had a right to be considered fairly, justly and properly and delay on account of inapplicable ground would amount to violation of Art. 14, which would not brook any ground on account of delay especially when no prejudice would be caused to anyone. The Art. 14 of the Constitution of India comes into action and the appellant had a right to be considered fairly, justly and properly and delay on account of inapplicable ground would amount to violation of Art. 14, which would not brook any ground on account of delay especially when no prejudice would be caused to anyone. When appellant's eligibility was not challenged in respect of prevailing recruitment rules and the policy, the subsequent amendment in the recruitment rules cannot be pressed into service to deny him the benefit of said policy, which in our view, amounts to violating his fundamental rights under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the considered view that the appellant ought to have been granted the relief which he had sought. As a result, the appeal succeeds and following order is passed. 9.1. The judgment and order dated 16-7-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge and orders dated 7-10-2006 and 19-9-2009 passed by the competent authority are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent shall consider the case of the appellant on the basis of the rules prevailing on 23-3-2006 and application made on 19-6-2006 and grant him the benefit of compassionate appointment, if he found eligible as per the prevailing policy. The entire exercise is to be completed and order be issued if there is nothing else against the appellant, within three months from the receipt of the writ of this order. Appeal allowed.