JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. CMP No. 2737 of 2022 In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for. CWP No. 7002 of 2021 With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for consideration today itself. 1. The case of the petitioner is that his father Shri Hans Raj, who was serving as a Constable in the Police Department, died in harness on 20.01.1993. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor and his elder sister Ms. Mangla Devi is otherwise suffering from disability to the extent of 90% and therefore, she was not in a position to apply for compassionate appointment. After the petitioner attained the age of majority he applied for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, which is evident from Annexure P-1, appended with the petition. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the department concerned vide communication dated 28.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), assigning the following reasons: “I am to refer to your Letters No. P.II(3) Anukampa/Ravi Sharma/Bilaspur/ 2012-31477 dated 03.12.2012 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter under reference has been examined at Govt. level in detail in consultation with the Finance Department who have observed that the proposal do not meet the financial/income criteria so fixed by the Government in Finance Department as per DOP’s instructions dated 24.08.2002 and 02.09.2002 vis-a-vis F.D. latest instructions dated 21.12.2012. Thus it cannot be considered.” 2. As the petitioner was not satisfied with the reasons stood assigned while rejecting his case for grant of compassionate appointment, he accordingly, again took the matter with the department, but the department again rejected his case on the ground that the same stood considered and rejected earlier also. It is in this background, that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-7, dated 28.06.2014 and 06.07.2021, i.e. the communication vide which the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. 3. It is in this background, that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-7, dated 28.06.2014 and 06.07.2021, i.e. the communication vide which the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of the impugned communications would demonstrate that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the department by following certain instructions which were issued much after the death of the father of the petitioner without appreciating that the case of the petitioner was liable to be considered on the basis of the policy which was in vogue in the State for granting appointment on compassionate basis as on the date when death of father of the petitioner took place. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that there is no infirmity with the decision which has been taken by the department, because the appointment on compassionate basis is not a source of regular recruitment and this being an exception to the norm, is obviously governed by the instructions which are issued by the government from time to time and the government rightly took into consideration the policy and the notification which were existing at the time when the case of the petitioner was considered by the department. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for rejection of the petition. He has also argued that otherwise also there is a considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court and therefore also, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. Addressing the question of delay, this Court is of the considered view that as the death of the father of the petitioner took place when the petitioner was a minor and as it is not much in dispute that after attaining the age of majority the petitioner immediately took up the case for grant of compassionate appointment with the department, per se, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the department for grant of compassionate appointment. The documents appended with the petition further demonstrate that after the case of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P-2 on 28.06.2014, he had been persisting with the matter with the respondent-authority and it is only on 06.07.2021 that subsequently he was informed that the department was not reconsidering his case on the ground that it already stood rejected. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no delay in filing of the petition on behalf of the petitioner and otherwise also taking into consideration the prayer which the petitioner is making, this Court is of the considered view that the technicalities like delay and latches should not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking justice. 8. Now, addressing the issue which has been raised on merit, this Court is of the considered view that there is considerable force in the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment by taking into consideration the policy and notification subsequent to the date of death of the father of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 , has been pleased to hold that in the case of compassionate appointment, the policy in vogue at the time when the death took place, has to be taken into consideration. This Court is of the considered view that in the cases of compassionate appointment, the policy which is favourable to the petitioner be it as on the date when the death took place, or as on the date when the case of the petitioner is being considered by the department, should govern the field so that if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of such a person, can be taken by the department. 10. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed by quashing Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-7, dated 28.06.2014 and 06.07.2021, as this Court is of the considered view that rejection of the case of the petitioner on the basis of subsequent policy and notification is not sustainable in the eyes of law, with further direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment taking into consideration his qualification, but applying the policy which was in force qua appointment on compassionate basis as on the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Let, needful be positively done within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.