ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Ms. Dhruvi Desai, learned advocate for Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs : “6. The petitioner prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:- (A) declare and hold that decision / communication dated 14.2.2018 and 17.7.2018 of the respondent Board is illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with policy of the respondent board as contained in Government Resolutions dated 20.2.2006, 25.4.2012 and Circular dated 5.4.2006 and further be pleased to quash and set aside decision / communication dated 14.2.2018 and 17.7.2018, Annexure-A to the petition, and (B) direct the respondent Board to pay lump sum compensation in view of the policy of as contained in Government Resolutions dated 20.2.2006 and 25.4.2012 and circular dated 5.4.2006, and (C) award the cost of the petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of petitioner and pay lump-sum compensation in view of Government Resolutions dated 20.02.2006 and 25.4.2012 and circular dated 5.4.2006, and/ or (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, viz. Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vaja, was working as Oilmen with the respondent – Gujarat Maritime Board, expired on 08.10.2008, when he was in service, leaving behind a widow, two daughters and a son. Thereafter, the petitioner herein applied for lump-sum compensation to the respondent authority by an application dated 08.12.2008, which is duly produced at Page-28. An Undertaking is also attached with the said application, which is duly produced at page-32. 3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner herein applied for lump-sum compensation to the respondent authority by an application dated 08.12.2008, which is duly produced at Page-28. An Undertaking is also attached with the said application, which is duly produced at page-32. 3.2. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 05.03.2009 (which is duly produced at Annexure-E, Pg.34) on the ground that the petitioner is not possessing the minimum qualification of S.S.C. pass, which is a requirement for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid is available only to those, who meet with the said educational requirement of passing S.S.C. examination. It was further held that the deceased Jagdishbhai Hirabhai Vaja’s wife was illiterate and all the three children had also not passed the S.S.C. examination. In view thereof, the petitioner is not entitled for the lump-sum compensation, in lieu of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the competent authority by preferring a representation dated 01.07.2015, which is duly produced at Page-48, Annexure-H, and the same appears to be not decided / not replied by the respondent authority. 3.3. Thereafter, the petitioner herein once again made a representation to the respondent authority for reiterating the aforesaid request by a communication dated 16.01.2018, which was replied to, by the respondent no.2, by the impugned communication dated 14.02.2018 stating that as per the resolution dated 05.07.2011, those cases, which were rejected earlier for grant of compassionate appointment, will not be re-considered for grant of lump-sum amount under the said policy. 3.4. By communication dated 26.02.2018, petitioner’s representation was replied to by the respondent authority on 17.07.2018, wherein, the request to extend the benefit to the petitioner was denied. As per the said decision of the respondent authority, petitioner is not entitled to compensation, as it is against the policy prevailing at that point of time, because nowhere in the government resolution dated 20.02.2006 or circular dated 05.04.2006, the eligibility criteria of having educational qualification, to receive the compensation is mentioned. The circular dated 29.03.2007 provides necessary clarification to get compassionate appointment and not for compensation. 3.5. The circular dated 29.03.2007 provides necessary clarification to get compassionate appointment and not for compensation. 3.5. Being aggrieved by the impugned action/ communication issued by the respondent authorities dated 14.02.2018 and 17.07.2018, duly produced at Annexure-A, petitioner herein has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, it is prayed that the said decisions are not in consonance with the policy of the respondents, as contained in government resolutions dated 20.02.2006, 25.04.2012 and circular dated 05.04.2006, and has prayed for the reliefs as stated herein-above. 4. Heard Ms. Dhruvi Desai, learned advocate for Ms. Harshal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 4.1. At the outset, Ms. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein had applied for lump-sum compensation, the said application is duly produced at pg-28. The said application dated 08.12.2008 itself is silent with regard to the educational qualification. The said application is in line with the proforma of the respondent no.2. 4.2. Ms. Desai, learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner never applied for appointment on compassionate ground and in view thereof, the said government resolution dated 23.09.2007, which is for the compassionate appointment, which is duly produced at Page-50 is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 4.3. Reliance is placed on the said application, wherein, the said application is with respect to the respondent – Board’s resolution dated 05.04.2006 and in view thereof the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of said policy of lump-sum compensation. 4.4. Ms. Desai, learned advocate submits that the policy dated 05.04.2006 of the respondent no.2-Board is duly produced at Page-22. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that the policy dated 05.04.2006 is specifically for the family members of an employee, who had expired during the course of service and the same is for giving lump-sum compensation or ex-gratia amount to the heirs of the deceased employees. 4.5. Ms. Desai, learned advocate submits that the said government resolution dated 29.03.2007, which is duly produced at Annexure-J, Pg.50, is for the purpose of compassionate appointment of the family members of the employees, who had expired, during the course of service. It is submitted that, the petitioner had also preferred a representation in the year 2015, which was not answered by the respondent – Board. It is submitted that, the petitioner had also preferred a representation in the year 2015, which was not answered by the respondent – Board. Thereafter, the petitioner once again had approached the competent authority, which came to be declined by the respondent authority on the ground that the petitioner’s application was earlier rejected by an order dated 05.03.2009 and in view of the government resolution dated 05.07.2011, more particularly, clause-6, wherein, if an application is rejected earlier for the compassionate appointment, the same would not be reconsidered. 4.6. Ms. Desai, learned advocate submits that the 2nd communication had also been issued by the petitioner on 17.07.2018, reiterating the same. 4.7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by Ms. Desai, learned advocate that the petitioner herein had never applied for compassionate appointment and in view thereof the case of the petitioner would not be governed by the said government resolution dated 23.09.2007. Ms. Desai, learned advocate submitted that earlier also the application of the petitioner was erroneously rejected on the ground that as the petitioner had not passed the S.S.C. examination, therefore, petitioner is not eligible for lump-sum compensation. It is submitted that when the petitioner herein is not governed by government resolution dated 23.09.2007, it was erroneous on the part of the respondent authorities to not to consider the petitioner’s application, taking into consideration the government resolution dated 05.07.2011, which provides that if an application for compassionate appointment is rejected earlier, the same would not be re-considered. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment and had applied only for compensation, as per the policy of the respondent. 5. Heard Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate appearing for the respondents - Gujarat Maritime Board. 5.1. Ms. Chandarana, learned advocate appearing for the respondents – Board placed reliance on the affidavit in reply filed by the Board, which is duly produced at Page-77 and placing reliance on the same, submitted that the present petition is barred by delay and latches, in as much as the petitioner is seeking lump-sum compensation against the compassionate appointment, which was declined by the respondent by communication dated 05.03.2009 (Pg.34), as per the existing policy. As per Clause-3 of the said policy dated 29.03.2007 (pg.50), financial assistance is given in lieu of appointment, if the heir of the deceased complies with the educational qualifications. As per Clause-3 of the said policy dated 29.03.2007 (pg.50), financial assistance is given in lieu of appointment, if the heir of the deceased complies with the educational qualifications. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, the said requirement is not satisfied by the deceased family members/ petitioner herein. 5.2. Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate submitted that by communication dated 05.03.2009, it was communicated by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2 - the Port Officer that financial assistance asked by the petitioner is rejected, as per the existing policy. It is submitted that, upon the scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the heirs of the deceased employees were not entitled to any financial assistance, as per the circulars, no legal heirs was having the requisite qualification required and hence the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected. It is submitted that ex-employee expired on 08.10.2008 and the application of the heirs for compensation was rejected vide order dated 14.02.2008, relying upon the existing resolutions dated 05.07.2011 (pg.36) as well as resolution dated 25.04.2012 (pg.40), copies of which are duly produced at Annexure-F. It is submitted that, as per the Clause-6 of the resolution dated 05.07.2011, if the application has been rejected, then it cannot be reconsidered again. 5.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the respondent authority, taking into consideration the policy that were prevailing on the relevant point of time. 5.4. Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate also placed reliance on the order dated 30.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1742 of 2013, wherein, the policy of 05.07.2011 was considered and it was held that the claim for monetary compensation could survive and could stand valid, if there was eligibility to the appointment, that the application had remained pending and not rejected. Clause-6 of the said policy resolution dated 05.07.2011 is considered in the said decision, which provides that the State Government had substituted the policy of giving compassionate appointment with lump-sum monetary payment and has contemplated that the new scheme would apply only to the pending application and not to those which are rejected. Clause-6 of the said policy resolution dated 05.07.2011 is considered in the said decision, which provides that the State Government had substituted the policy of giving compassionate appointment with lump-sum monetary payment and has contemplated that the new scheme would apply only to the pending application and not to those which are rejected. In the facts of the said case, it was intimated to the petitioner in the said petition and in view thereof, it was held that petitioner in the said petition was neither entitled for compassionate appointment nor monetary compensation. It is also submitted that, it is no longer res-integra that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, it is only for the period when there is a crisis in the family, upon the death of a family member, who is in service, wherein, in such cases, the family members are considered on compassionate ground. 6. In rejoinder, Ms. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the petitioner herein applied for lump-sum compensation under 2006 policy, which is not in dispute, and in view thereof, 23.09.2007 policy is not applicable to the petitioner, and when the petitioner never applied for appointment on compassionate ground, the question of rejecting or not considering the petitioner’s application for lump-sum compensation does not arise. 7.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that father of the petitioner expired on 08.10.2008, when he was in service, wherein, he was working as Oilmen with the respondent Board, leaving behind widow, two daughters and a son. 7.2. The petitioner herein is the son of the deceased employee, who had preferred an application for lump-sum compensation, under the policy circular dated 05.04.2006. The petitioner herein had also filed an Undertaking before the competent authority that the petitioner would not claim the appointment on compassionate ground, upon receiving lump-sum compensation, the said Undertaking is duly produced at Page-33. The relevant part of the said Undertaking reads thus : “….Further, after receiving the stated financial assistance, neither I nor my heirs shall be entitled to demand directly or indirectly any compassionate appointment in the Board and, in future, I shall not make any representation or try to put any pressure in this regard. The relevant part of the said Undertaking reads thus : “….Further, after receiving the stated financial assistance, neither I nor my heirs shall be entitled to demand directly or indirectly any compassionate appointment in the Board and, in future, I shall not make any representation or try to put any pressure in this regard. Having such a clear understanding and without being under any influence or without any pressure or intimidation and being in sound state of mind, I have written this undertaking which is and shall be binding on me.” 7.3. It appears that the said application came to be declined / rejected by the respondent authority, taking into consideration the policy of 23.09.2007 and it was held that as none of the family members of the petitioner were having the qualification of S.S.C. passed, which was the required criteria for appointment on compassionate ground and in view thereof, he was not entitled for the lump-sum compensation. 7.4. Upon perusal of the said policy dated 23.09.2007, it emerges that the same is with regard to the clarification with respect to the appointment on compassionate ground of Class-III and Class-IV employees, who were in service. 7.5. It is apposite to refer to the policy dated 05.04.2006, which is duly produced at Page-21, the said policy is for the purpose of lump-sum compensation, which reads thus : “About payment of Financial Assistance to dependent family in lieu of compassionate appointment to a family member of employees of Gujarat Maritime Board who die while in service. Office of Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar. Resolution No. GuMeBo-E.2-Compassionate-1-135 Date: 05/04/2006 Read: 1. Resolution No. EOP-1099-G.1703-GH dated 20/02/2006 of the Department of Port and Transport, Government of Gujarat. 2. Resolution No. 2054 of 196th Meeting dated 23/02/2006 Circular The proposal as to payment of Lump-sum financial assistance, instead of compassionate appointment, to dependent family of employees of Gujarat Maritime Board who die in harness was made to the Government, which came to be sanctioned vide the above read resolution dated 20/02/2006 of the State Government. (Copy appended herewith.) Financial Assistance is admissible as under and Income Tax shall be deducted therefrom. (Copy appended herewith.) Financial Assistance is admissible as under and Income Tax shall be deducted therefrom. (1) In the instances of Class-III and Class-IV employees dying while in service, where remaining service period is 10 years or less, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) and where remaining service period is more than 10 years, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid as Financial Assistance. (2) To avail the above stated Financial Assistance, a heir of an employee dying while in service may sign an undertaking, as appended herewith, on a stamp of Rs.50/- before a Magistrate First Class/ Notary and send the same, along with an application in prescribed format and consent letters of other heirs, to this office through the concerned head of office. (3) On receiving above stated, at Sr. No.1, undertaking of heirs of an employee dying while in service, all the applications made by heirs of the employee shall be deemed as filed and no member of dependent family shall be entitled for a compassionate appointment. (4) Financial Assistance shall be entitled to legal heirs only. (5) As per Para-2(A)(2) of the revised scheme of compassionate appointment, Schedule – 1 of the Resolution No. PRCH/2197/K dated 10/03/2000 of the General Administration Department, this scheme shall be applicable to dependent families of Class-III and Class-IV employees appointed on regular basis, as well as work-charge employees of Class-III and Class-IV, who have completed minimum 5 years of service and who die while in service. This scheme shall not be applicable to Daily Wagers, Casual Workers, apprentices and appointed on ad hoc, contract or re-employment basis. (6) The concerned head of office may immediately contact the family of deceased employee and obtain the application in prescribed form, undertaking and consent letters from other heirs, fill the details in the appended form, verify the same with the Service-Book and send the same to the Head Office along with a proposal for financial assistance, Pension Sanction Order and Death Certificate. (7) In future, with regard to any representation for compassionate appointment, the procedure as per the provisions of this circular shall be followed. Sd/- (illegible) Deputy Secretary Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar.” 7.6. (7) In future, with regard to any representation for compassionate appointment, the procedure as per the provisions of this circular shall be followed. Sd/- (illegible) Deputy Secretary Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar.” 7.6. The petitioner herein once again approached the respondent authority for reiterating the request, however, the same also came to be declined by the impugned communication / decision dated 14.02.2018 and 17.07.2018, mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s application seeking lump-sum compensation was declined earlier by order dated 05.03.2009 and in light of the policy dated 05.03.2011, it is not permissible to reconsider such application for lump-sum compensation. 7.7. Upon consideration of the aforesaid, it is apposite to refer to the order dated 11.03.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12093 of 2015, wherein, after considering the identical issue and considering the fact, it was held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. Taking into consideration the various positions of law, it was held that in the said case, petitioner was governed by the scheme framed by the Board of 2006, which was in force. The scheme does not speak of any particular educational qualification for the purpose of compassionate appointment. It was further held that the submission canvassed on behalf of the Board that as the petitioner or her son were not found to be otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment, they could not have been granted any lump-sum amount by way of compensation. The Court has further held that the payment of lump-sum amount by way of compensation is dependent on the eligibility of a person to seek actual appointment. 7.8. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v/s. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 , wherein, it is held that while considering the appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent on the date of death of the employee is required to be considered. The appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. The relevant paras-5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision reads thus : “5. The appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. The relevant paras-5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision reads thus : “5. 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. 6. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., 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 the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas. It is required to be noted that in the case of 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.” 7.9. In the facts of the present case also, the petitioner herein applied for lump-sum compensation under the 05.04.2006 policy, which was prevalent at the relevant point of time, the benefit of which was declined by the respondent – Board, by erroneously relying upon the policy dated 29.03.2007. 7.10. In the opinion of this Court, the contention raised by the respondent with regard to the delay in filing the present Petition, does not come to avail to the respondent authority, in view of the fact that the said application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2018 and was entertained and was decided, however, the same was declined mainly on the ground that, for an application which was earlier filed for the purpose of compassionate appointment, a 2nd application would not be entertained. 7.11. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner never applied for compassionate appointment and petitioner applied for lump-sum compensation under the scheme / policy of 05.04.2006, which is self-explanatory, however, the said application was not entertained by the respondent. 7.12. 7.11. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner never applied for compassionate appointment and petitioner applied for lump-sum compensation under the scheme / policy of 05.04.2006, which is self-explanatory, however, the said application was not entertained by the respondent. 7.12. Upon perusal of the documents available on record, it does not appear that there is any bar in filing the 2nd application under the scheme of 05.04.2006, which is applicable to the petitioner. 8. In view of aforesaid, the decision / communication dated 14.02.2018 and 17.07.2018 of the respondent Board is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. In view of above, the matter is remanded back to the respondent authority to decide the petitioner’s representation afresh in accordance with the policy dated 05.04.2006 as well as in light of the observations of this Court, as referred above. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the present Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.