JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) The central issue to be addressed in this Letters Patent Appeal arising from judgment and order dated 28.6.2022 of learned single Judge, is whether while considering the case of compassionate appointment, the set of rules in vogue at the time of making application for compassionate appointment would be applicable, or the policy prevalent at the time when the application is actually considered for the purpose of grant of benefit, would apply. 2. The prayer in the main petition was to set aside the decision of respondent No.2 – Superintending Engineer, Road and Building Department, denying the petitioner the compassionate appointment. The petitioner was offered lump-sum compensation as per the new policy. 3. The father of the petitioner was an attendant in the office of the respondent Executive Engineer. He died on 22.10.2010 while in service. The petitioner who was legal heir of the deceased employee made an application on 30.11.2010 for appointment on compassionate ground. It was forwarded and processed in the department. It was then also forwarded to the Gujarat Public Service Commission, which finally passed order dated 29.9.2011 granting the benefit of lump-sum compensation to the petitioner. 3.1 When the petitioner made application dated 30.11.2010, the scheme for compassionate appointment provided for giving actual appointment. By the time the decision was taken in respect of the case of the petitioner, the said scheme was discontinued. It was replaced by Resolution dated 5.7.2011, wherein it was contemplated that subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the scheme, instead of actual appointment, the kith and kins of the deceased employee would be entitled to lump-sum compensatory amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The amount has been subsequently enhanced, by issuing another Resolution, it was stated. 3.2 From communication dated 29.5.2012 of the petitioner addressed to Executive Engineer (copy figuring at page No.53), it is revealed that compensation of Rs.4 lakhs was deposited by the authorities in the bank account of the petitioner without his intimation or consent and that the petitioner was not willing to accept the financial aid. It was stated that if the actual appointment was given, the amount would be refunded. 3.3 Learned Single Judge referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court to reiterated the principle that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. He relied on decision of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. It was stated that if the actual appointment was given, the amount would be refunded. 3.3 Learned Single Judge referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court to reiterated the principle that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. He relied on decision of the Apex Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka[ (2020) 7 SCC 617 ], in which it was observed thus, "A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee." (para 20) 3.4 In other words, learned Single Judge rested his reasoning on the principle that it would be the date of consideration of the application and not the date of making of the application, which would be relevant to decided as to which policy would apply to the case for grant of compassionate appointment. The norms applicable at the time of consideration of the application would apply, it was held by learned Single Judge to finally dismiss the petition holding that the benefit of new scheme under Resolution dated 05.07.2011 was properly granted. 3.5 The appellant relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [ (2015) 7 SCC 412 ], in which the view taken by the Supreme Court was that the policy in vogue at the time of making the application by the person seeking compassionate appointment would come into play to determine the eligibility. Also sought to be pressed into service, yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the Secretary to Govt. Department Of Education (Primary) Vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa [ AIR 2022 SC 402 ]. 3.6 The Bheemesh (supra) was the case before the Supreme Court under Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 read with Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th Amendment) Rules, 2012. As per the facts of that, the sister of the claimant who was employed as Assistant Teacher in the Government school died in harness. At the time of death of the said employee, the rules applicable did not include unmarried within the definition of 'dependent of deceased government servant'. As per the facts of that, the sister of the claimant who was employed as Assistant Teacher in the Government school died in harness. At the time of death of the said employee, the rules applicable did not include unmarried within the definition of 'dependent of deceased government servant'. The said Rules were subsequently amended to included the unmarried brother as dependent. The Supreme Court held that merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after issuance of amended Rules, the claimant brother could not have sought benefit of the amendment and the claimant was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 3.7 In Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (supra), the Supreme Court noticed various decisions including State Bank of India vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari[ (2019) 5 SCC 600 ] and State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 , which took different view than taken in Canara Bank (supra). 4. The contention of learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Shakeel Qureshi in nutshell is that when the application was made seeking the benefit, a particular scheme was in force which would have entitled the petitioner to actual appointment, however, the petitioner was granted benefit of Resolution dated 5.7.2011 offering lump-sum compensation under the new scheme. It was the contention that this Resolution would not have application in the case of the petitioner. The Resolution dated 5.7.2011 was thus applied with retrospective effect, it was submitted. 4.1 The case and the prayers was contested by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-reply to inter alia submit that the appointment on compassionate basis could not be claimed as a matter of right. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay Udhwani submitted that when the decision in favor of the petitioner was taken, and whichever scheme was applicable, at the time of decision, the same was extended to him and benefit of lump-sum compensation was granted. 4.2 The decision in Bheemesh (supra), Rajkumar (supra) and Canara Bank (supra), though seemingly takes different views, a close examination of facts of each of the cases would go to show that the principle enunciated therein would stand true on their own respective facts. 4.2 The decision in Bheemesh (supra), Rajkumar (supra) and Canara Bank (supra), though seemingly takes different views, a close examination of facts of each of the cases would go to show that the principle enunciated therein would stand true on their own respective facts. In Rajkumar (supra) there was specific provision in the new scheme that all pending application would be governed by new scheme which could be said to have been weighed with the Supreme Court to hold that the employee can be considered only under the new scheme. Similarly in Canara Bank (supra) as noted above before coming into force the new scheme the employee had approached the High Court in the year 2003 which became a guiding factor of the court to treat the eligibility prevalent on the date of application to be applicable. 5. While it is true that there would appear some conflict of views in the decisions that stand true to their own facts having a particular peculiar aspect becoming decisive in leaning towards a particular view. 5.1 In Canara Bank (supra), the death of the employee was on 10.10.1998, at which time the scheme of 1993 was prevalent. The new scheme came to be introduced in the year 2005. While it is true that the Court ruled that new scheme would apply, the noticeable aspect was that the application of the aspirant was rejected in the year 1999, against which, he had approached the High Court in the year 2003. As he had approached the High Court before coming into force of the new scheme in2005, the said aspect appears to be weighed with the Supreme Court to conclude that the old scheme should apply. 5.2 In Raj Kumar (supra), employee died on 01.10.2004, the application was made for compassionate appointment on 06.06.2005 and 14.06.2005 providing for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum was introduced in place of old scheme. The new scheme contained a provision that all the applications pending under the old scheme will be dealt with in accordance with the new scheme. The Court held that the application of the employee could be considered only under the new scheme in view of the specific provision. The specific provision became decisive. 5.3 In Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the all aforementioned decisions including referred to above, perceived to be expressing conflicting opinion. The Court held that the application of the employee could be considered only under the new scheme in view of the specific provision. The specific provision became decisive. 5.3 In Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the all aforementioned decisions including referred to above, perceived to be expressing conflicting opinion. It was states thus, "Though there is a conflict as to whether the Scheme in force on the date of death of the employee would apply or the Scheme in force on the date of consideration of the application of appointment on compassionate grounds would apply, there is certainly no conflict about the underlying concern reflected in the above decisions. Wherever the modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied those benefits, but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old Scheme was made applicable." (para 18) 5.3.1 Before observing as above, in the preceding lines, the Supreme Court highlighted that if the compassionate appointment is one of the condition of service and is made automatic upon the death of employee in harness without any kind of scrutiny, the same would be treated as a vested right. However, it is not so, stated the Court. It was observed that the appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic, but it is subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters and conditions including financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the occupation of other members of the family. It was rightly stated that "This is why some of the decisions which we have tabulated above appear to have interpreted the applicability of revised Schemes differently, leading to conflict of opinion." 5.3.2 The Supreme Court proceeded to observe further, "The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date namely the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. The next date namely the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor." (para 19) 5.3.3 The Supreme Court explained, "...if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor."(para 19) 5.4 The decision in Canara Bank (supra), in Raj Kumar (supra) and other decision referred to by the Supreme Court in Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (supra) were all delivered by two judge Benches. 5.5 When a situation arises where decisions of the Supreme Court Benches of co-equal strength are noticed to be taking conflicting views in relation to similar controversy and in juxtaposition, Bench of the Supreme Court with larger strength has taken a particular view, the decision of the Bench of the larger strength would prevail. The conflicting views would have to give way to the view taken by larger strength Bench. The principles on this lines are highlighted and summarized by the Supreme Court in M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. through its Director Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi through its Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors. [AIR 2022 SC 4866], in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs. The principles on this lines are highlighted and summarized by the Supreme Court in M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. through its Director Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi through its Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors. [AIR 2022 SC 4866], in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 2 SCC 673 ], in Union Of India & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh [ (1989) 2 SCC 754 ] and in Sher Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab [ (1983) 2 SCC 344 ]. 5.5.1 The various decisions of co-equal Benches of the Supreme Court referred to above are prima facie conflicting in taking view as to where a policy for compassionate appointment to be applied would be one on the date of death / making of application or the one which is prevalent at the time of actual consideration of the application to grant the benefit. As against that the decision in Bheemesh (supra), which is the decision of the larger strength Bench takes a view that the policy which gives lesser benefit have to be formulated. It is safe of the High Court to follow the view expressed by Bench of the larger strength of the Supreme Court, Bheemesh(supra) in a reconciliatory reasoning explains the rationale behind the different view and approach, endeavoring to harmonize. For the High Court it would make a binding precedent. 5.6 In light of the above, referring to the decision in N.C. Santhosh (supra), which is a three Judges Bench judgment, therein under the scheme of Karnataka Rules for Compassionate Appointment, a minor dependent of the deceased Government employee may apply within one year from the date of attaining majority. The amendment was introduced to the proviso to Rule 5 of the said Rules to provided that a minor dependent should apply within one year from the date of death of Government servant and must have attained the age of 18 years on the date of making of application. This Rule was applied and the appointment of the person already made on compassionate basis were cancelled by the authority, which was challenged before the Court. 5.6.1 The Supreme Court held that the norms bringing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis to grant the compassionate appointment. This Rule was applied and the appointment of the person already made on compassionate basis were cancelled by the authority, which was challenged before the Court. 5.6.1 The Supreme Court held that the norms bringing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis to grant the compassionate appointment. In absence of any vested right, it was observed, a dependent of a government employee can only demand consideration of his application and therefore, he is dis-entitled to seek application of the norms prevailing on the date of the death of the government servant. 5.6.2 The common thread of logic was succinctly noticed by the Supreme Court in Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (supra), "Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in which this Court has proceeded to interpret the applicability of a new or modified Scheme that comes into force after the death of the employee, we may notice an interesting feature. In cases where the benefit under the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of the new Scheme. But in cases where the benefits under an existing Scheme were enlarged by a modified Scheme after the death of the employee, this Court applied only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of the employee. This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law." (para 17)(emphasis supplied) 5.6.3 The Court thereafter held in paragraph 18 that "wherever the modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied those benefits, but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old Scheme was made applicable". In holding as above, the three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh (supra), struck a balancing jurisprudence. 5.7 State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Awasthi[ (2022) 2 SCC 157 ] was a case wherein the Supreme Court held that the policy prevalent at the time of death of employee shall apply. In that case, the father of the respondent was work charged employee who died on 08.10.2015. 5.7 State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Awasthi[ (2022) 2 SCC 157 ] was a case wherein the Supreme Court held that the policy prevalent at the time of death of employee shall apply. In that case, the father of the respondent was work charged employee who died on 08.10.2015. As per the policy prevalent, under Circular dated 29.09.2014, at that time, the dependents were not entitled to compassionate appointment but were entitled to Rs.2 lakhs compassionatory ground. It was a reverse case than the case on hand wherein by subsequent Circular dated 31.08.2016, the actual appointment was provided. The Court held that policy at the time of death would apply, which is to give the compassionatory amount. What is to be noted is that what was applied by the Supreme Court was the scheme giving the lump-sum benefit, a lesser benefit and not the greater benefit introduced in the new scheme. 6. From the above discussion, the conclusion is to be drawn by following decision in Bheemesh (supra), which in its observations resolves the controversy about taking a view with a trend is to apply the policy which gives lesser benefit when modified. Measured by this yardstick, in the instant case, the benefit under the modified scheme of Resolution dated 5.7.2011 could be said to be properly granted by paying lump-sum compensation to the petitioner. 6.1 Therefore, viewed from all the above standpoints, in the facts of the present case, new policy reflected in Resolution dated 05.07.2011 of the State Government granting the lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment has been rightly applied by the respondents in the case of the appellant-petitioner. The Resolution dated 05.07.2011 which provided for lump-sum compensation on compassionate basis could be said to be a scheme whereby the policy of giving actual appointment on compassionate basis was diluted. The modified scheme under Resolution dated 05.07.2011 could be said to have granted truncated or lesser benefit compared to the actual appointment. The same was applied and the benefit was accordingly granted on compassionate ground. 6.2 For the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge and more particularly those recorded hereinabove, this Court does not find any error in the order of learned Single Judge upholding the application of scheme under Resolution dated 05.07.2011 in case of appellant-petitioner. 7. The present Letters Patent is meritless and the same is dismissed.