JUDGMENT : P.B. Bajanthri, J. In the instant petitions, petitioners have assailed the order bearing No.SAM.SA.SHRE SA KAA/NEE. SHAKE/2312/2013-14 dated 4/6-01-2014 (Annexure 'C') by which contesting respondents 3 to 5 have been appointed on compassionate ground to the post of First Division Assistant/Senior Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.14550-26,700/- afresh for the 2nd time. 2. Undisputed facts are that petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were all appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2006 as is evident from Annexure 'D' seniority list prepared in the cadre of Junior Supervisor (equivalent to Second Division Assistant as on 01.01.2012). Service particulars of the petitioners and contesting respondents are hereunder: Sl.No. Name and Rank of the parties Date of appointment on compassionate ground 1. Uma K Mallipatil 04.01.1993 (Petitioner No.1) 2. Vishalakshi 22.06.2002 (Petitioner No.2) 3. G S Venkatesh 11.04.2000 (Respondent No.3) 4. Shobha Kudhukute 12.05.2003 (Respondent No.4) 5. Vasanthakumari KL 27.03.2006 (Respondent No.5) 3. Petitioners and contesting respondents were discharging the post of Junior Supervisor. Abruptly, Principal Secretary, Common Cadre Committee on 14.06.2013 proceeded to appoint respondent Nos.3 to 5 on compassionate ground afresh to the post of First Division Assistant/Senior Supervisor on the score that they possess qualification prescribed for the post of First Division Assistant/Senior Supervisor read with decisions of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that such appointment on compassionate ground to a higher post, that too once when they were appointed in the lower cadre Second Division Assistant/Junior Supervisor, are in force and in the absence of provision. Merely, respondents possess higher qualification, they cannot be appointed to higher post after gap of more than a decade. In support of their contention, learned counsel relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.G.(KARMIK) and Others vs PRAHLAD MANI TRIPATHI, (2007) Supp AIR SC 1264 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a candidate is appointed on compassionate ground to the lower post of peon without any demur, he cannot turn around and contend that he was entitled for higher post having regard to the qualification. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised a preliminary issue relating to maintainability of the Writ Petition. It was submitted that petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority on the score that petitioner can raise a dispute before the appropriate authority. 6. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent raised a preliminary issue relating to maintainability of the Writ Petition. It was submitted that petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority on the score that petitioner can raise a dispute before the appropriate authority. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents 3 to 5 vehemently contended that petitioner has no locus insofar as questioning the validity of the second compassionate order issued to the contesting respondents for higher post. It was also submitted that Annexure 'C' - the second order on compassionate appointment is with reference to decision of this Court in W.P.No.32634/2003 dated 14.06.2006 which is affirmed by the Division bench in THE DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION and Others. vs H N GURUPRASAD AND ANR, (2009) ILR(Kar) 1462. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of second compassionate appointment so as to interference by this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Questions for consideration in the present petitions are that: (i) Whether Writ Petition is maintainable or not? (ii) Whether petitioner has locus standi or not? (iii) What order on merit? 9. Petitioners cannot be asked to resort for an alternative remedy for the reason that matter relates to compassionate appointment and statutory provision has not been pointed out that against compassionate appointment that petitioner has remedy before particular authority. It is not relating to any dispute among 2 employees in respect of service condition. Hence, writ petitions are maintainable. 10. As regards petitioners have locus standi or is not concerned, in respect of service conditions of contesting respondents who are appointed on compassionate ground for the second time on 4/6.01.2014, if the second compassionate appointment of respondents 3 to 5 are upheld, the chances of promotion of the petitioners who are in the feeder cadre would be curtailed or affected. Moreover, authority who has issued Annexure 'C' is with reference to decisions of this Court. Cited decisions are not related to respondents 3 to 5. That apart, from the date of first appointment and second appointment, there is gap of nearly a decade. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioners have locus standi. On merits, 2nd respondent has no authority to issue second compassionate appointment order to the respondent no. Cited decisions are not related to respondents 3 to 5. That apart, from the date of first appointment and second appointment, there is gap of nearly a decade. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioners have locus standi. On merits, 2nd respondent has no authority to issue second compassionate appointment order to the respondent no. 3 to 5 and merely with reference to some decisions passed by this Court in respect of second compassionate appointment as permissible with reference to higher qualification. That apart 2nd respondent has not shown the source of power to issue compassionate appointment for the 2nd time. Moreover earlier order has not been cancelled or modified. Therefore it is evident that for extraneous reasons 2nd respondent has issued 2nd order of compassionate appointment to the respondent no. 3 to 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra clearly held that compassionate appointment once issued irrespective of lower post, candidate is not entitled to seek modification for a higher post with reference to his higher qualification. Thus decisions of this Court has no application to the present 6 in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision and the fact that second compassionate appointment order is issued to respondents 3 to 5 after nearly a decade. Moreover, respondents 3 to 5 have not questioned the validity of their initial appointment. As long as initial appointment is intact, there is no question of issuance of second compassionate appointment order. It is also to be noted that in the impugned order dated 4/6.01.2014, 2nd respondent has not cancelled or modified or reviewed the first appointment issued a decade back to respondents 3 to 5. 11. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are allowed. Annexure 'C' dated 4/6.01.2014 is set-aside. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to restore the position of respondents 3 to 5 in the cadre of Junior Supervisor within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that no recovery of difference of pay from respondent no. 3 to 5 is permissible in view of the decision rendered in STATE OF PUNJAB vs RAFIQ MASIB (white washer), (2015) AIR SC 1267.