JUDGMENT : The case of the petitioner is that his father, who was serving as Beldar with the respondent-department, died in harness on 01.04.2016. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds post death of his father on 16.08.2017. His grievance is that his prayer for offering him appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected by the respondent-department vide order Annexure P-4, dated 03.07.2020, on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfils minimum prescribed educational qualification in terms of instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019 issued by the Finance Department. 2. Mr. Daleep Chand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the respondent-Department is not sustainable in law as the department has erred in not appreciating that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had to be considered on the touchstone of the policy which was prevalent in this regard as on the date when father of the petitioner died and not on the basis of subsequent policy/instructions which came into existence in the year 2019. Learned Counsel has also argued that in terms of previous policy and instructions, i.e. office memorandum dated 24.02.2016, issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, there was power conferred upon the concerned Administrative Secretary to grant relaxation in educational qualification in cases it deemed appropriate to do so. Accordingly, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order and issuance of direction to the respondent-department to appoint the petitioner as a Beldar on compassionate grounds. 3. The petition stands opposed by the State inter alia on the ground that the right of appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and same is always subject to availability of sanctioned posts. It is further the stand of the State that as the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum educational qualification for being considered for appointment as Beldar/ Class-IV employee, therefore, his case was rightly rejected by the department. 4. Mr. It is further the stand of the State that as the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum educational qualification for being considered for appointment as Beldar/ Class-IV employee, therefore, his case was rightly rejected by the department. 4. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the minimum educational qualification as per policy of the Government in this regard, be it the earlier policy or the subsequent policy, was middle pass as far as the post of Beldar/Class-IV is concerned and the case of the petitioner being strictly in sync with the policy in issue, there is no merit in the same and the same be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 01.04.2016, and thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate basis in the year 2017. The case of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing minimum qualification for being appointed as a Beldar on compassionate grounds. The minimum prescribed educational qualification for the post in issue is middle pass, and as on the date, when the petitioner applied for the post in issue, admittedly he was not middle pass. His qualification was 7th standard. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ashish Awasthi, Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021 and other connected matter, decided on 18.11.2011, has been pleased to hold that the case of a candidate for appointment on compassionate grounds has to be assessed in terms of the scheme/circular prevalent as on the date of death of the deceased- employee. In the present case, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of instructions dated 07.03.2019 and 01.11.2019. It is not in dispute that vide office memorandum dated 24.02.2016, relaxation in age for joining government job and minimum educational qualification, time limit for submission of compassionate employment cases was redefined in terms whereof the Administrative Secretary was having the power in relation to cases of compassionate appointment to accord relaxation in educational qualification in cases, in which, it deemed appropriate to do so through a reasoned order. This Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the date of death of the deceased-employee and the date when the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the department in terms of the policy in vogue for considering the cases for compassionate appointment, as on the date of death of deceasedemployee read with office memorandum dated 24.02.2016. That having not been done and the case of the petitioner having been rejected on the basis of subsequent instructions/circular, which came into existence in the year 2019, the impugned act of the respondent-department is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, in view of observations made hereinabove, this petition is allowed and impugned order (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondent-department to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate basis in terms of policy in vogue as on the date of death of the deceased-employee read with office memorandum dated 24.02.2016. Taking into consideration the fact that the father of the petitioner was serving as a Class-IV employee and the petitioner himself is seeking appointment against a Class-IV post, the Court hopes and expects that a sympathetic view will be taken by the Administrative Secretary with regard to grant of relaxation in educational qualification, if so required. Let appropriate order on the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground be passed on or before 30th April, 2022. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.