JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 11.08.2022, (Annexure P­3), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to offer him appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, came to be rejected on the ground that income of the family of the petitioner exceeds the income limit prescribed in the policy for appointment framed by the Government of the Himachal Pradesh applicable in the relevant year, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct respondents to offer him appointment on account of compassionate ground. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed reply. Though, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder, but the same was not availed. 3. Precisely, the undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties, are that late father of the petitioner, while serving as regular Beldar in HPPWD, Division Nahan, died in harness on 17.08.2010 and thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in year 2013. However, department after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of policy framed in year 2013, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that annual income of the family at the time of death of the father of the petitioner was more than prescribed limit. Since income of the family of the petitioner at the time of death of his father was Rs. 1,10,000/­ and income criteria fixed for appointment in the year 2013 was Rs. 75,000/­, case of the petitioner was rejected. Interestingly, the petitioner never laid challenge to order dated 12.02.2015 and thereafter, he again filed an application on 07.03.2019, thereby making request for compassionate appointment, however, same also came to be rejected vide order dated 16.03.2021 on the same ground that income of the family of the deceased employee was more than prescribed limit. Even aforesaid order dated 27.07.2021 was not laid challenge. Again vide application dated 11.03.2020, petitioner made request to department to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds being ward of deceased Sh. Mansa Ram, who admittedly died in harness on 17.08.2010. Even aforesaid order dated 27.07.2021 was not laid challenge. Again vide application dated 11.03.2020, petitioner made request to department to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds being ward of deceased Sh. Mansa Ram, who admittedly died in harness on 17.08.2010. Aforesaid prayer again came to be rejected vide order dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure P­3) on the ground that annual income of the family of the deceased employee was more than the prescribed limit. 4. Mr. A.K Gupta, learned counsel representing petitioner vehemently argued that application filed by petitioner for compassionate appointment in year 2022 is/ was required to be considered in terms of policy in vogue i.e. policy of year 2019, wherein minimum income has enhanced from Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 2,25,000/­. He submitted that since as per own case of respondents annual income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 1,10,000/­, case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment in terms of policy of year 2019. 5. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents, vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He stated that the application filed in year 2013 stood rejected in 2015 itself on the ground that annual income of the deceased employee at the time of his death was more than prescribed limit and as such, present petition is otherwise not maintainable. He submitted that mere filing of application in year 2022 would not entitle petitioner to claim compassionate appointment in terms of policy circulated in year 2019, especially when earlier on two occasions prior to year 2022, his case was considered and rejected in terms of policy in vogue at that relevant time. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the application for compassionate appointment in year 2022, petitioner had made similar applications on two occasions, one in year 2013 and thereafter in year 2019 and on both the occasions, department considered the case of the petitioner in light of policy for appointment on compassionate ground in vogue. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the application for compassionate appointment in year 2022, petitioner had made similar applications on two occasions, one in year 2013 and thereafter in year 2019 and on both the occasions, department considered the case of the petitioner in light of policy for appointment on compassionate ground in vogue. Admittedly, petitioner's father expired in year 2010 and thereafter, application for compassionate appointment was made by petitioner in year 2013 in terms of policy of year 1991 framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein admittedly minimum income criteria of Rs. 75,000/­ was fixed. Since annual income of the deceased employee was Rs. 1,10,000/­ at the time of his death, case of the petitioner for appointment rightly came to be rejected. Again in year 2019, petitioner, without laying challenge to order passed in year 2015, made an application for compassionate appointment, which also came to be rejected on similar grounds. Mere filing of repeated applications for compassionate appointment would not make petitioner ipso facto eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of policy framed after the year 2013. There was no occasion for the petitioner to file application in year 2019, 2021 and then in year 2022, especially when similar prayer of him made in the year 2013 stood rejected on the ground of income criteria, as such, in any eventuality, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in year 2022 for considering the case in terms of policy promulgated in year 2019, rightly came to be rejected vide order dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P­ 3). No doubt, in the Policy of 2019, income limit came to be enhanced from Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 2,25,000/­, but since at the time of death of father of the petitioner, policy of year 2013 was in vogue, wherein income limit was Rs. 75,000/­, coupled with the fact that no challenge was ever laid by the petitioner to order dated 12.02.2015, whereby his prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected at first instance, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the authorities, while rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in year 2022. Needless to say, by now is it well settled that policy for compassionate appointment applicable at the time of death of deceased employee shall be applicable to consider prayer, if any, made for the compassionate appointment by the family of deceased employee. Needless to say, by now is it well settled that policy for compassionate appointment applicable at the time of death of deceased employee shall be applicable to consider prayer, if any, made for the compassionate appointment by the family of deceased employee. Reliance is placed upon judgment titled State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemesh (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 707 decided on 16.12.2021, wherein it has been held as under: “The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of employee; (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependent. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is 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. 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. Let us take for instance, a hypothetical case where 2 government servants die in harness on 01.01.2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 01.06.2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, once in respect of the person who made the application before 01.06.2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 01.06.2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependents 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. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This 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 determine and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not in indeterminate and variable factor. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 08.12.2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft Notification on 20.06.2012. The final Notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma C.B. on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma C.B. came as a result of the existing rule being declared to the ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 7. Reliance is also placed on judgment titled State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ashish Awasthi (2022) 2 SCC 157 decided on 18.11.2021, wherein it has been held as under: “The deceased employee died on 08.10.2015. At the time of death, he was working as a work­charged employee, who has paid the salary from the contingency fund. As per the policy/ circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. Policy/ Circular No. C­3­ 12/2013/1­3 dated 29.09.2014 in case of death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/ heirs were not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide Circular dated 31.08.2016, under which even in the case of death of the work­charged employee, his heirs/ dependents will be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent Circular/ Policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent Circular/ Policy dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy. In Indian Bank V. Promila, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this court in State of M.P. V. Amit Shrivas. It is required to be noted that in Amit Shrivas the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The submission on behalf of the respondent that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the respondent has been appointed and therefore his appointment may not be disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench under which the respondent is appointed is quashed and set aside, necessary consequences shall follow and the appointment of the respondent, which was pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be protected. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in WA NO. 1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent Circular/ Policy dated 31.08.2016. It is reported that the amount of Rs. 2 laksh which was paid to the respondents as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy/ scheme of 2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the same may be paid to the respondent. It is reported that the amount of Rs. 2 laksh which was paid to the respondents as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy/ scheme of 2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the same may be paid to the respondent. For the reasons stated in the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2021, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2003 of 2019 also deserves to be quashed and set aside as in the present also, the Division Bench of the High Court ha directed the appellants to consider the case o the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground applying the subsequent scheme/ circular and though under the scheme/ circular prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee, who at the relevant time was serving on work charge establishment, also deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the present appeal is also allowed.” 8. It has been categorically ruled in aforesaid judgment that policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee is only required to be considered and not subsequent policy. 9. In view of discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any.