ORDER : Since the issue involved in both these petitions is same, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners Binnu Ram and Mukesh Kumar are challenging the order dated 9.4.2018 (Annexure P/8) and the order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P/8 colly) whereby their representations for grant of regular pay scale have been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of permanent Gangman Labour (Daily Wager) on compassionate ground against the sanctioned vacant post as per the set up and they are getting the salary of daily wage employee. However, as per the circulars dated 27.2.2007, 6.7.2007 and 12.2.2008 (Annexure P/2) issued by the State Government if any appointment is made on compassionate ground, then it would be under the contingency fund and initial salary is to be paid to such employee on regular pay scale along with dearness allowance, for a period of three years and thereafter regular pay scale shall be paid. But the petitioners are not being paid accordingly whereas the persons who were appointed on compassionate ground are getting salary of regular pay scale and the persons who were appointed as daily wagers, they have also been regularized and now they are getting salary of regular pay scale. Though the petitioners made representations from time to time before the concerned authorities for grant of regular pay scale but the same were not considered. Hence they filed writ petitions before this Court, upon which this Court directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner on the basis of circular dated 12.2.2008 but the same were rejected by the impugned orders. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs: WPS No.6417/2018 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.1(a) That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P/8) issued by respondent no.2. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by State Govt. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by State Govt. 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner and grant regular pay scale under contingency fund as per circulars issued by State Govt. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working till the consideration the case of the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.” WPS No.957/2019 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.1(a) That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 22.10.2018 issued by respondent no.2. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by State Govt. 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner and grant regular pay scale under contingency fund as per circulars issued by State Govt from the date on which the similar situated employees are getting it. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working till the consideration the case of the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the settled principles of service jurisprudence. The respondents ought to have considered that the petitioners are not working as daily wagers or on ad hock, temporary or contract basis and therefore, as per order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. The respondents ought to have considered that the petitioners are not working as daily wagers or on ad hock, temporary or contract basis and therefore, as per order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and circular dated 5.3.2008, their services should have been regularized. The case of the petitioners ought to have been considered in light of circulars dated 27.2.2007, 6.7.2007 and 12.2.2008 but the officers of the State did not comply with their own circulars/guidelines issued from time to time and therefore, the impugned orders being illegal are liable to be set aside. He submits that the petitioners have completed about 15 years of continuous service, they are appointed on compassionate ground upon death of their father who was regular employee in the department; their appointment has been made under the government policy against the sanctioned post and therefore, it cannot be said that their appointment is illegal or irregular or contrary to the constitutional scheme. Furthermore, the case of similarly situated employees namely Dhola, Smt. Mankumari, Sanjho Bai, Smt. Fulbaso, Smt. Muniya and Abdul Hussain have already been considered by the respondents without their approaching this Court whereas the petitioners’ claim has been denied in an arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory manner. Due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners are not getting promotion and other service benefits as have been extended to the similarly situated employees. The petitioners have come to know that the respondents are going to fill up the sanctioned vacant post against which the petitioners are working and if it is done, the petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss. In view of above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case and grant them regular pay scale as per the circulars of the State Government from the date on which it was given to the similarly situated employees. 5. In view of above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case and grant them regular pay scale as per the circulars of the State Government from the date on which it was given to the similarly situated employees. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioners submits that the State Government in its circular dated 5.3.2008 has given a clear direction to regularize the service of those daily wagers who were appointed during the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1997 whereas the petitioner Binnu Ram Ram was appointed on 30.4.1998 and petitioner Mukesh Kumar was appointed on 1.8.2002, therefore, they cannot claim regularization in terms of the aforesaid circular. The petitioners have been appointed on compassionate ground, their appointment was not against any sanctioned vacant post, therefore, though they have completed more than 15 years of service, but they are not entitled for regularization and regular pay scale as their appointment was made on the basis of circular dated 10.6.1994 (Annexure R/1) which states that compassionate appointment to the son of permanent labourers in regular pay scale is not to be given as there is no instruction for the same. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the similarly situated employees have been regularized and given regular pay scale, the petitioners have not submitted any document which could show as to on what basis and by which mode such employees have been considered by the respondents and further, due to non-joinder of parties, the allegation of the petitioners of discrimination is not tenable. It is settled law that application for compassionate appointment is required to be considered in terms of the rules in existence at the time of death of the concerned employee. 6. So far as certain queries raised by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2023 are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents/State in their Additional Return submitted that Abid Siddiqui, Surendra Singh, Anil Kumar Choubey and Rajendra Prasad Gupta whose services have been regularized they were terminated as per order dated 30.3.2000 after paying retrenchment compensation. However, retrenchment compensation has not been received by Anil Kumar Choubey and Surendra Singh whereas the same has been accepted by Abid Siddiqui and Rajendra Prasad Gupta. However, retrenchment compensation has not been received by Anil Kumar Choubey and Surendra Singh whereas the same has been accepted by Abid Siddiqui and Rajendra Prasad Gupta. Since the petitioners herein were appointed on compassionate ground, the question of payment of retrenchment compensation to them does not arise. The said order dated 30.3.2000 was not subject to challenge before learned MP State Administrative Tribunal at the relevant time. Further, vide circular dated 27.1.2000 (Annexure A) of State of MP, Public Works Department, Bhopal, services of daily wagers who were appointed after 31.12.1988 were to be terminated and consequently, as per order dated 30.3.2000 services of the daily wagers were terminated after paying them retrenchment compensation. In view of above, it is clear the petitioners were not entitled for regularization of their services and therefore, their representations were rightly rejected by the respondent authorities. Both the petitions being without any substance are liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground. The respondents denied regular pay scale to the petitioners stating that their appointment was on compassionate ground. The operative part of the order dated 23.2.2018 reads as under: The operative part of the impugned order dated 9.4.2018 reads as under: 9. This Court in para 2 of its order dated 30.11.2015 passed in WPS No.4930/2017 filed by petitioner Mukesh Kumar and WPS No.4936/2017 filed by petitioner Binnu Ram, made following observation : "2. Considering the limited issue brought before this Court, the writ petitions are disposed of with direction that on petitioners' submitting fresh representation claiming regular pay scale on the strength of circular dated 12.02.2008, within a period of 4 months from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation by a speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of representation." The circular dated 12.2.2008 being relevant is reproduced hereunder: 10. It is clear from the impugned orders that while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the respondent authorities did not consider the circular dated 12.2.2008 and rejected the representations of the petitioners on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008 whereas the circular dated 12.2.2008 specifically provides that if the deceased employee was working in the regular establishment, his dependant be given compassionate appointment on regular post after his fulfilling the other conditions and if the deceased employee was working under the contingency fund, in that case his dependant be given appointment temporarily under contingency fund on regular pay scale. By this circular, all the concerned authorities were directed to comply with the aforesaid procedure of compassionate appointment. However, in the present case, the respondents have not followed the instructions contained in the circular dated 12.2.2008. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the claim of the petitioners for regular pay scale has been rejected by the impugned orders and the circulars of the State Government, in particular the circular dated 12.2.2008, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P/8 in WPS No.957/2019) and dated 9.4.2018 (Annexure P/8 in WPS No.6417/2018) are not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners as per circular dated 12.2.2008 from the initial date of their appointment. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Both the writ petitions thus stand allowed.