JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dhruv Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. for the respondent no. 2. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application. (B) A writ of mandamus & or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus & or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on appropriate post permanently till he attains age of superannuation on the ground of compassionate appointment with respondent authority as early as possible with utmost priority in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, an interim protection may kindly be granted by directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on adhoc basis as per G.R. dated 15.6.2004 in the interest of justice. (D) Be pleased to expedite the final hearing of this petition. (E) Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Briefly stated, the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent-GIDC on the post of peon, having joined the services with the respondent no. 1 on 24.09.1985 and has expired on duty due to cardiac arrest on 13.09.2005. The death certificate of the petitioner’s father-Kanubhai is duly produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner herein applied for compassionate appointment with the respondent-authority by filing an application dated 20.10.2005, which is duly produced at Annexure-D. In absence of any reply from the respondent-authority nor any order of appointment, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr. Dhruv Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted appointment on compassionate ground upon the application filed by the petitioner dated 20.10.2005. It is submitted that the petitioner is governed by the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 wherein, the income criteria, which was prevailing at the relevant point of time came to be cancelled and the respondent-State was pleased to resolve that in future, there would not be any income criteria for the appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the petitioner is governed by the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 wherein, the income criteria, which was prevailing at the relevant point of time came to be cancelled and the respondent-State was pleased to resolve that in future, there would not be any income criteria for the appointment on compassionate ground. Reliance is placed on item 5, clause-C, sub-clause (1) and (2) which denotes for educational qualification for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts. It is submitted that the said application was not answered nor considered by the respondent-authority and in view thereof, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court. 4.1. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has filed affidavit, which is duly produced at page 76 wherein, it is stated that the respondent no. 1 being part of the State, is bound by the scheme of compassionate appointment floated by the State Government. It is submitted that as per the norms of the respondent-Corporation, the Corporation submitted the proposals for approval to the State Government for giving compassionate employment to the eligible applicants and that the decision was awaited and as soon as the decision of the respondent-State for filling up the vacant posts is received, necessary action for appointment on compassionate ground would be taken by the respondent-Corporation. 4.2. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 02.02.2007, which is sent to the respondent no. 2, duly produced at Annexure-R1. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has also filed affidavit, which is duly produced at page 114. The said affidavit states that by order dated 27.08.2013, communicated to the respondent no. 1 that as per the notification no. RHM/102009/1651/A dated 05.07.2011, employees of Class-III and IV of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation i.e. the respondent no. 1 herein, who expired while serving, will be given monitory benefit and the scheme is approved by the respondent-State. The said notification dated 05.07.2011 is placed on record at page 118. 4.3. It is submitted that the respondent-State has also filed the additional affidavit, which is duly produced at page 179 whereby, it is placed on record that the petitioner has, in line of the notification dated 05.07.2011, received lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. 4.4. Mr. 4.3. It is submitted that the respondent-State has also filed the additional affidavit, which is duly produced at page 179 whereby, it is placed on record that the petitioner has, in line of the notification dated 05.07.2011, received lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. 4.4. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. 2023 Live Law (SC) 175 and in the case of Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, 2022 Live Law (SC) 863. 5. Ms. Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. has placed on record the S.B.I. bank statement dated 07.02.2023 submitted by the respondent-G.I.D.C. vide letter dated 10.02.2023, and undertaking dated 28.10.2013, which are duly produced at Annexures-R-1, R-II and R-III respectively at pages 181 to 189. 6. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate, in rejoinder, vehemently submitted that the petitioner herein would deposit the amount of Rs.4 lacs, which is received by the petitioner with interest and that, the case of the petitioner be considered for compassionate appointment. 7. On perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground by application dated 20.10.2005, upon death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as a peon since 24.09.1985 and has expired on duty due to cardiac arrest on 13.09.2005. The respondent no. 1, in turn, by communication dated 02.02.2007, sent the list of candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which included the petitioner’s application dated 20.10.2005. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was governed by the government resolution dated 10.03.2000, which is duly produced at page 32. Pending the present petition, the respondent-State issued a notification dated 05.07.2011 wherein, the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 was also considered. On perusal of the said notification dated 05.07.2011, in clause-5, it is stated that “all the pending applications regarding giving compassionate appointment to the dependent family member of Class-3 and Class-4 employees who died during service, shall be disposed of as per this new scheme.” 8. Considering the aforesaid clause, the petitioner herein is governed by clause-3(1)(3) of the said notification and accordingly, pending present petition, the petitioner has accepted the monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs voluntarily. 9. It is apposite to refer to the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-State. Paragraphs 1 to 5 thereof, read as under: “1. Considering the aforesaid clause, the petitioner herein is governed by clause-3(1)(3) of the said notification and accordingly, pending present petition, the petitioner has accepted the monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs voluntarily. 9. It is apposite to refer to the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-State. Paragraphs 1 to 5 thereof, read as under: “1. This present affidavit is being filed for a limited purpose to put on record two important documents namely SBI Bank statement dated 07th February 2023 Submitted by GIDC vide letter dated 10th February 2023 and an undertaking dated 28.10.2013. 2. It is submitted that by Bank statement dated 07th February 2023 it appears that the concern authority and department has paid lump-sum amount of Rs.4 lakhs according to notification dated 05.07.2011. The copy of SBI Bank statement dated 07th February 2023 Submitted by GIDC vide letter dated 10th February 2023 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-I. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner by undertaking dated 28.10.2013 stated that in case the whole amount of monetary benefit is paid the Petitioner will not file any suit or raise any dispute in this matter. The copy of undertaking dated 28.10.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-II. 4. It is submitted that all the relevant documents are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-III (Colly). 5. In light of what is stated herein above, it is humbly prayed that the captioned petition may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 10. The said affidavit is duly produced at page 179 and attached with (i) S.B.I. bank statement dated 07.02.2023 at page 182 submitted by the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 10.02.2023. (ii) Undertaking filed by the petitioner herein at page 189 wherein, the petitioner has accepted the amount knowing fully well that the petitioner has accepted the compensation under the notification dated 05.07.2011 and that, there is no dispute on the part of the petitioner and in future, the petitioner would not raise any dispute with regard to the same. The said undertaking dated 28.10.2013 is duly signed by the petitioner as also two witnesses in front of the notary. (iii) The relevant documents are duly produced on record. 11. The said undertaking dated 28.10.2013 is duly signed by the petitioner as also two witnesses in front of the notary. (iii) The relevant documents are duly produced on record. 11. Upon perusal of the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has accepted the amount of compensation and having accepted the same, it is now not open for the petitioner to state that the petitioner is not governed by the undertaking i.e. filed as back as in the year 2013, duly signed by the petitioner and attested by two witnesses. Further, the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 is also considered in the notification dated 05.07.2011 wherein, all the pending applications are stated to be governed by granting of the monitory benefit, in accordance with the said resolution. 12. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 522 and in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. 2023 Live Law (SC) 175 is not applicable in the facts of the present case wherein, it is held that the delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would not frustrate the very object of the scheme of compassionate appointment. That the Government Officials are to act with proactiveness while deciding the claims of compassionate appointment to ensure that the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is fulfilled. 12.1. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner herein applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 20.10.2005. The respondent no. 1, in turn, by communication dated 02.02.2007, sent the list of candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which included the petitioner’s application dated 20.10.2005. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was governed by the government resolution dated 10.03.2000. In the meantime, the respondent-State issued notification dated 05.07.2011 wherein, the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 was also considered and it was decided that all the pending applications regarding compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of Class-3 and Class-4 employees, who died during the service, would be disposed of as per the new scheme. As per the said notification, the petitioner has also accepted the monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs voluntarily. 12.2. As per the said notification, the petitioner has also accepted the monitory compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs voluntarily. 12.2. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, 2022 Live Law (SC) 863, wherein, it is held that the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which, the application for compassionate appointment is considered, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as, in the facts of the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the qualification of the petitioner herein. 13. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.