ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation/engagement seeking quashing of order dated 21.10.2022, Annexure P-18 whereby petitioner's representation seeking regular appointment after attaining the age of superannuation is rejected after considering the orders of the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.21351/2021. 2. Petitioner's case is that her husband Shri Nagendra Singh Thakur was working as a Forest Guard, he died on 29.7.1999. Thereafter since petitioner was IVth Class pass, she had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Under the General Forest Division, Dindori unreserved post of Class IV employees was not vacant. Case was forwarded to the higher Officers and thereafter in absence of any non-gazetted class IV post being available in vacant condition, petitioner was given benefit of appointment as a daily wager. She admittedly attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2021. Thereafter, petitions are filed claiming that in W.A. No.977/2021 decided on 12.7.2022 Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court has held that compassionate appointment should be made against a regular sanctioned vacancy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Annexure P-11 submits that Additional Collector, Dindori had informed the Treasury officer, Dindori that one post of Peon was available in the Office of the Treasury Officer, Dindori and, therefore, case of the petitioner was forwarded for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, it is pointed out that petitioner is agitating the matter from the very beginning but without inferences. 4. Shri Lokesh Jain submits that once petitioner had accepted compassionate appointment as Daily Wager after more than 20 years she is not entitled to say that she had no knowledge of her engagement for about 20 years during service. There is no provision for regularization of illegal appointments. Once petitioner is accepted the appointment on compassionate basis as a daily wager then after 21 years it is not open to the petitioner to say that she should have been appointed against a regular sanctioned post and should be given benefit of regularization. 5. There is no provision for regularization of illegal appointments. Once petitioner is accepted the appointment on compassionate basis as a daily wager then after 21 years it is not open to the petitioner to say that she should have been appointed against a regular sanctioned post and should be given benefit of regularization. 5. Since petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, and in terms of the order of compassionate appointment contained in Annexure R-2, there is a specific stipulation that once petitioner accepts appointment as Godam Chokidar on Collector rates then she will not be entitled to any further indulgence in the mater of compassionate appointment and petitioner had given her consent for such appointment vide Annexure R-1, now the principles of estoppel will be applicable. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents be at least directed to consider case of the petitioner to extend benefit of GAD circular dated 7.10.2016. 7. This prayer is not opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 8. In view of above, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority that in case petitioner files a fresh representation along with certified copy of the order being passed today within 15 days from today then, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the said representation within a further period of 60 days through a speaking order in the light of the GAD circular dated 7.10.2016 and if it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, then,petitioner be granted benefit accordingly. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 10. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.