JUDGMENT : B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J. 1. The appellant No.2 rejected the respondents' request for appointment of the respondent No.2 on compassionate grounds vide the order dated 26/28.02.2007, and therefore, the respondents filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2885/2008 for quashing of this order dated 26/28.02.2007. The writ petition in W.P.No.2885/2008 is disposed of with a direction to consider the respondents' case for appointment of the respondent No.2 on compassionate grounds to a sanctioned post under an existing vacancy. The direction vide the impugned order is premised on the ground that the application by the respondent No.2 for appointment on compassionate should be considered under the Scheme vide the Official Memorandum dated 22.8.1985 (for short, 'Scheme of 1985') that was prevalent as of the date of the demise of the father of the respondent No.2, Sri Virupaksha. The directions in the writ read as follows: "Therefore, the inadvertence, the counsel for the petitioners having placed reliance on the 1996 Rules would not deprive the petitioners of claiming the benefit of 1985 Scheme, which were the relevant provisions under which he could seek employment. Though it is also settled position that if a family, which has lost its bread winner has managed to survive over the years, the need for providing such employment on compassionate grounds does not arise. The fact that the petitioners had made an application under the 1985 Scheme in accordance with the said Scheme and the same not having been considered and further when there is no indication that such appointments would be made only against an existing vacancy, it is necessary at least for the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds to a sanctioned post under an existing vacancy. The respondents shall do so with expedition and in any event shall communicate to the petitioners as to the availability or the nonavailability of such a post within a period of eight weeks, if not earlier. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of." The appellants are aggrieved by this direction because the direction is premised in the reasoning that the respondents would be entitled to claim the benefit of compassionate appointment claiming the benefit under the Scheme of 1985. Therefore, they have preferred this intra-Court appeal. 2. It is undisputed that Sri. Virupakshappa, who was working as peon with the appellant No.3, died in harness on 26.04.1995. Therefore, they have preferred this intra-Court appeal. 2. It is undisputed that Sri. Virupakshappa, who was working as peon with the appellant No.3, died in harness on 26.04.1995. As of the date of the demise of Sri. Virupakshappa, the respondent No.2 was short a few days from completing nine years. The respondent No.1, his wife, submitted an application on 18.9.1995 with the appellant No.3 informing that her husband died leaving behind a minor son (the respondent No.2), and requesting that her minor son be given appointment on compassionate grounds immediately upon he attaining majority. The respondent No.2, who is born on 5.4.1986, completed 18 years on 5.4.2004, and within a period of 11/2 months i.e., on 20.05.2004, the respondent No.2 filed an application with the appellant No.3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent No.2 requested the authorities to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in conformity with the Scheme of 1985 for appointment on Compassionate Grounds. 3. It is undisputed that the State notified Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules 1996') inter alia for appointment of the dependent/s of a deceased Government Servant, and these Rules 1996 stipulate in Rule 3(1) that 'Appointment on compassionate Grounds under these rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course'. Further, insofar as the period within which the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made, Rule 5 of the Rules 1996 provides as follows: "Every dependant of a deceased Government servant, seeking appointment under these Rules shall make an application within one year from the date of death of the Government servant, in such form, as may be notified by the Government, from time to time, to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working. Provided that in the case of a minor application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority". Provided that in the case of a minor application shall be made within a period of one year after attaining majority". However, proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules 1996 is substituted by amendment vide Amendment Rules notified on 1.4.1999 and 28.11.2000, and after the amendment by substitutions, the Proviso/s read as follows: "Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter. Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent of a government servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules 1998". 4. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ appeal are: a. Whether the respondents would be entitled for consideration of the application/s for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Scheme vide the Official memorandum dated 22.08.1985 or under the provisions of the Rules 1996, and the subsequent amendments thereto. b. Whether the direction issued to the appellants to consider the respondents' application/s under the Scheme vide the Official Memorandum dated 22.08.1985 requires to be modified. 5. The provisions of the Rules 1996 provide for the manner in which the applications which were pending as of the date these Rules were notified should be dealt with, (These Rules 1996 are notified on 12.9.1996). The provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules are captioned 'Transitional Provisions', and Rule (1) provides that applications made prior to 20.10.1994, and the application made on or after that date but before the commencement of the Rules, and which were pending on the date of commencement of these Rules, shall be deemed to have been made within the period specified in Rule 5 of the Rules and shall be considered for appointment subject to the provisions of the Rules 1996. The provisions of Section 9(1) read as follows: "9(1). The provisions of Section 9(1) read as follows: "9(1). All applications for appointment on compassionate ground made prior to the twentieth October,1994 and the applications made on or after that date but before the date of commencement of these rules and which are pending on the date of commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been made within the period specified in Rule 5 and shall be considered for appointment subject to other provisions of these rules. [1-A] Where any application made under sub-rule (1) is rejected on the ground that it is not made within the period specified in Rule 5, it shall be reconsidered for appointment subject to other provisions of these rules." These provisions of Rule 9(1) of Rules 1996 leave no room for doubt that all applications for appointment on compassionate grounds made prior to 20.10.1994, and after this date but before the notification of the Rules 1996 and pending consideration, would be saved and will have to be considered in accordance with the Rules 1996. 6. In the present case, it is undisputed that Sri Virupakshappa died on 26.4.1995, and within a period of five months from the date of his demise, his wife viz., the respondent No.1 submitted an application on 18.9.1995 informing the appellant No.3 that the deceased had left behind the respondent No.2, who was a minor son, with a request that the appointment on compassionate ground should be given to him on he completing 18 years of age. The respondent No.2 has completed 18 years only on 5.4.2004, and he has submitted another application on 20.5.2004 requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds. This application submitted by the respondent No.2 on 20.5.2004 is rejected by the Endorsement dated 26/28.2.2007 on the ground that his application could not be considered because of the provisions of the first Proviso of Rule 5(1) of Rules 1996. In terms of this provision, he would be entitled to make an application for appointment on compassionate grounds if he had completed 18 years within one year of the demise of his father and made an application within the next one year. 7. However, it is not borne out from the records that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 on 18.9.1995 was rejected anytime before the Rules 1996 came into force or any time before the impugned Endorsement dated 26/28.2.2007. 7. However, it is not borne out from the records that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 on 18.9.1995 was rejected anytime before the Rules 1996 came into force or any time before the impugned Endorsement dated 26/28.2.2007. Further, the appellant No.3 has not considered whether the application dated 20.5.2004 submitted by the respondent No. 2 could be construed as an application submitted in continuation of the application submitted by his mother on 18.9.1995, and if the application dated 20.5.2004 could be so construed, whether it would be saved as provided under Rule 9(1) of Rules 1996. These aspects will have to be considered under the aforesaid Transitional Provisions of Rules 1996. In view of the provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules 1996, it cannot be gainsaid that the provisions of Scheme of 1985 would not subsist. Therefore, the first of the questions that arise for consideration is answered accordingly. 8. The similar circumstances presented itself for decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Others vs. K.R.Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206 . In the case on hand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the son was a minor as of the date of the death of his father in harness. He attained majority on 20.10.1995. He submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 11/13.11.1997. This application was rejected on the ground that the application was not maintainable in accordance with Rule 5 of Rules 1996. The son repeated an application on 22.4.1998 and this application was not entertained. After Rules 1999 were amended, the son filed another application on 29.11.1999 and this application was rejected on 9.6.2000. The authorities rejected the third application dated 21.11.1999 placing reliance upon the second proviso introduced by way of substitution by the amended Rules 1999. The son challenged the rejection before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the petition was allowed by the Tribunal directing the authorities to consider his appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the limitation mentioned in Rule 9 of Rules 1996. This Court dismissed the writ petition filed impugning the Tribunal's order. The son challenged the rejection before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the petition was allowed by the Tribunal directing the authorities to consider his appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the limitation mentioned in Rule 9 of Rules 1996. This Court dismissed the writ petition filed impugning the Tribunal's order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and this Court and declared as follows: "A bare reading of the second proviso makes the position clear that unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no application. If the second proviso has no application, then the question of any subsequent application being considered does not arise. The provision is clear and unambiguous. That being so, there was no scope for introducing a concept of condonation of delay as has been done by the Tribunal and the High Court. If the view is accepted, it would mean that a belated application will be deemed to have been done within time. That would be in effect introducing a deeming provision by interpretative process which is not permissible." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows, "Our interference shall not stand in the way of the respondent's case being considered on the basis of existing or future rules as may be applicable". 9. Even in this case, the appellants have been directed to consider the respondents' request for appointment on compassionate grounds to a sanctioned post under an existing vacancy. But, such consideration cannot be as already concluded under the provisions of Scheme of 1985. Further, the consideration must be whether the application dated 20.5.2004 submitted by the respondent No.2 could be construed as an application submitted in continuation of the application submitted by the respondent No.1, his mother, on 18.9.1995, and if the application dated 20.5.2004 could be so construed, whether it would be saved as provided under Rule 9 (1) of Rules 1996. 10. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Another, (1994) 2 SCC 718 , while examining whether mercy and sympathy could influence a decision in the matter of grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has held as follows: "For aught one know, there may be other cases waiting already for appointment on compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the second respondent. "Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted". The direction to the appellants to consider the respondents' request for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be seen in the light of the aforesaid observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the foregoing, the writ appeal is allowed in part clarifying that the appellants shall consider the respondents' request for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with Rules 5 and 9 and other applicable provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 and the observations made herein.