ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishvesh A. Pujara for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “A. Be pleased to admit/allow this petition; B. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction and be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay lumpsum compensation to the petitioner at 12% rate of interest per annum, as per the prevailing policy of the Government pertaining to Compassionate Appointment, which was in existence at the date of application preferred by the petitioner i.e. on 18/06/2004, in the interest of justice; C. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to communication dated 21/12/2017, communication dated 30/11/2016 and communication dated 20/07/2019 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department R & B Div, Juna Thana, Navsari by which the request of the petitioner seeking Lumpsum Compensation under relevant and prevailing policy came to be rejected and be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay lumpsum compensation to the petitioner at 12% rate of interest per annum, as per the prevailing policy of the Government pertaining to Compassionate Appointment, which was in existence at the date of application preferred by the petitioner i.e. on 18/06/2004 in the interest of justice; D. Be pleased to grant interim relief and by way of interim order be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay lumpsum compensation to the petitioner at 12% rate of interest per annum, as per the prevailing policy of the Government pertaining to Compassionate Appointment, which was in existence at the date of application preferred by the petitioner i.e. on 18/06/2004 in the interest of justice, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, in the interest of justice; E. Be pleased to pass such other and further order as thought fit in the interest of justice.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that late husband of the petitioner who was working as Junior Clerk with the respondents had unfortunately passed away on 15.05.2004 in harness and whereas the applicant had preferred an application for compassionate appointment, thereafter, it appears that after few litigations, the applicant had ultimately sought for grant of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Policy of the State Government, vide G.R. dated 05.07.2011 and whereas upon the said application being rejected, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner who would submit that immediately upon the late husband of the petitioner expiry, the applicant had preferred an application praying for being appointed on compassionate basis and whereas the said application had been rejected by the respondents interalia on the ground that the applicant was not SSC pass, which was a requirement as per the extant Policy of the State Government. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner being aggrieved by such a decision had challenged the same before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.3734 of 2007 and vide an order dated 02.04.2007, a learned coordinate bench of this Court had interalia directed the respondents to reconsider their decision dated 17.10.2006 on the basis of the Policy which was prevailing when the husband of the petitioner had expired, more particularly, in respect to the educational qualification which was relevant and material at the time of date of demise of the late husband of the petitioner. Learned advocate would submit that the case of the petitioner had been considered by the respondents and whereas the respondents had once again vide an order dated 12.07.2007 rejected the request of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had thereupon preferred writ-petition being Special Civil Application No.12546 of 2008 which came to be decided, vide an order dated 15.01.2009 whereby the learned coordinate bench had held that as per the Policy prevailing at the time of demise of the late husband of the petitioner, there was no requirement for any qualification for appointment on a Class-IV posts on compassionate ground, having held thus, the learned co-ordinate bench had directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. Learned advocate would submit that the order passed by the learned co-ordinate bench had been challenged by respondent – State before Division Bench by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No.2309 of 2009 and whereas Division Bench, vide order dated 29.09.2014 had set aside the decision of the learned co-ordinate bench, more particularly, by holding that the State was empowered to take a decision as per the Scheme which was existing when the application was being considered. Learned advocate would submit that in the meanwhile since a new Policy i.e. vide G.R. dated 05.07.2011 had come into force, the Division Bench had reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to apply as per the new Policy and whereas the respondents were directed to take a decision in accordance with law. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner had preferred an application on 30.09.2013 seeking for lumpsum compensation and whereas the said application had been followed up by the petitioner with various other applications and ultimately vide an order dated 30.11.2016, the respondents had rejected the said application, more particularly, holding that the case of the petitioner having been decided before G.R. dated 05.07.2011 came into force, therefore, as per Clause-6 of the said G.R., there could not be any reconsideration. The said decision had been reiterated vide a decision dated 11.12.2017 and whereas both the decisions are under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara would submit that the respondents had committed an error in not considering the application of the present petitioner, more particularly, since liberty have been reserved in favour of the petitioner to apply as per the new Policy of the State Government. Learned advocate would submit that under such circumstances, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pay to the petitioner lumpsum compensation as per the Policy prevalent. 6. On the other hand, the present petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak who would submit that while the Division Bench had reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to make an application, the Division Bench had also observed that the State to take a decision in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, the present petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak who would submit that while the Division Bench had reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to make an application, the Division Bench had also observed that the State to take a decision in accordance with law. Learned AGP would submit that G.R. dated 05.07.2011, on basis of which the petitioner is seeking grant of lumpsum compensation, interalia envisages that in all cases where compassionate appointment is sought for on the ground of demise of Government Servant in harness and has been rejected before issuance of the said G.R. then there shall not be any reconsideration of such cases. Learned AGP would submit that since the case of the petitioner had been rejected as far as back in the year 2007, and whereas, though the learned co-ordinate bench had vide decision dated 15.01.2019 set aside the said decision, yet, ultimately, the decision of the learned single Judge itself had been set aside by the Division Bench. Learned AGP would submit that under such circumstances since the order dated 12.07.2007 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner being an existence reconsideration was not permissible. Hence, no error has been committed by the respondents and whereas learned AGP requests this Court not to entertain this petition. 7. Heard learned advocates for the parties who have not submitted anything further. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the record, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak. It would appear in this regard that G.R. dated 05.07.2011 whereby the Scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to legal heirs of deceased employees who expired in harness, had been modified to granting of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said G.R. at Cluase-6 interalia envisages that if a case for grant of compassionate appointment on demise of a government servant in harness has been rejected before the G.R. had been issued then the same could not be reconsidered. The said G.R. at Cluase-6 interalia envisages that if a case for grant of compassionate appointment on demise of a government servant in harness has been rejected before the G.R. had been issued then the same could not be reconsidered. 7.1 As far as the petitioner is concerned, while her initial application dated 18.06.2004 had been rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 17.10.2006, and whereas the same had been set aside by this Court in the first round of litigation i.e. vide order dated 02.04.2007 in Special Civil Application No.3734 of 2007. It would further appear that as per the directions of the learned co-ordinate bench in the abovementioned decision, the respondents had reconsidered the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 12.07.2007, the same had been rejected. As submitted by learned AGP, though at some point of time on account of order dated 15.01.2009 by learned coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.12546 of 2008, the order dated 12.07.2007 had been set aside, but upon Division Bench passing order dated 29.09.2014 setting aside the decision of the learned co-ordinate bench, order dated 12.07.2007 would sand revived. 8. That while the Division Bench had permitted the petitioner to apply under the new Policy, very consciously, the Division Bench had inserted two caveats i.e. “if permissible” and “the respondents to take a decisions in accordance with law”. Thus, the petitioner was allowed to make an application if the same was permissible and even if such application is made, the respondents were directed to take a decision in accordance with law. As noted hereinabove, while the petitioner had made an application, as per the terms of G.R. dated 05.07.2011, since order dated 12.07.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment had been rejected, was in existence, the respondents, were precluded to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per the terms of G.R. dated 05.07.2011 itself. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the respondents, more particularly, since the respondents were considering the application in line of direction of the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.09.2014. 9. For the discussion, observations and conclusions as hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference having been made out. The present petition stands disposed of as rejected.