ORDER : (Rajani Dubey, J.) : The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No.2 refused to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner’s father Nandlal Patel who was working as Head Master, Grade-II, died in harness on 8.11.2014. After his death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment which was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Kharsia to the competent authority Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigarh vide letter dated 15.12.2014. Through letter dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare informed the Block Education Officer, Kharsia that he is satisfied with the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment but an affidavit is required to be filed by the petitioner. The Block Education Officer was directed to give his report after examination of application of the petitioner. Accordingly, after obtaining affidavit of the petitioner, the Block Education Officer forwarded the application of the petitioner again to the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 13.1.2015 (Annexure P/3). However, the Assistant Commissioner through letter dated 21.1.2015 informed the Block Education Officer that since brother of the petitioner is in government service, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother approached respondent No.1/Secretary, Department of School Education and on the direction of the Secretary, the petitioner’s case was reconsidered. The petitioner submitted application afresh on 30.11.2015 along with certificate issued by the Sarpanch and affidavits of his family members to the effect that his brother is living separately and entire responsibility is now on the shoulders of the petitioner, but yet again his application was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P/1). Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 15/12/2015 (Annexure P/1). iii. To kindly direct the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with policy dated 14/06/2013 and in the light of the interpretation/order of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi (supra). iv. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 15/12/2015 (Annexure P/1). iii. To kindly direct the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with policy dated 14/06/2013 and in the light of the interpretation/order of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi (supra). iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and arbitrary, as such liable to be set aside. Respondent No.2 cannot deny the petitioner compassionate appointment upon extraneous consideration and irrelevant facts. After death of his father, the petitioner and his family are facing severe financial hardship. The petitioner’s case is governed by the policy dated 14.6.2013 which do not contain any prohibition for appointment on compassionate ground when any other family member is in government service. Even otherwise, the petitioner along with his application had submitted the certificate issued by the Sarpanch and affidavits of his family members to the effect that his brother is living separately and entire responsibility is now on the shoulders of the petitioner, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. Hence the impugned order being bad in law is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be held entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209 ; Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 241; order dated 26.10.2015 of this Court in the matters of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi Vs. State of CG and others, WPS No.633/2015 and NC Santosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per circular dated 14.6.2013 of the State Government in case of any family member of the deceased being in government job, the other member like the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Since admittedly the petitioner’s brother namely Rajesh Kumar Patel is in government service, the petitioner’s application has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. Since admittedly the petitioner’s brother namely Rajesh Kumar Patel is in government service, the petitioner’s application has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. Further, while considering the petitioner’s application, the respondents have followed the order/memo dated 5.1.2015 (Annexure R/1) of the Department of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe wherein it is clearly instructed that in case any member of the deceased employee is already working, the other family member of the deceased would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. So far as the order of this Court in the matter of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi, relied upon by the petitioner, is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioner as while dismissing the petition, the Court observed in para 12 of the order that the father of the petitioner is already in government service and as such, merely because the policy is silent in this regard, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as father being in service and having sufficient means to meet both the ends and keeping in view the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) as the appointment on compassionate ground is not a course of recruitment. Thus, it is clear that appointment on compassionate ground can be granted only to meet the financial hardship due to untimely death of the employee and such appointment is not a source of recruitment. In view of above, there is no substance in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. In his Rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the letter dated 5.1.2015 (Annexure R/1) would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner because vide clarification dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure P/8) the General Administration Department of the State Government has already clarified that in all the cases where death of employee has taken place after 14.6.2013, the postulates of such policy only would be applicable. Clause 21 of the policy dated 14.6.2013 clearly prescribes that any decision in respect of interpretation of the policy would be referred to the General Administration Department of the Government. However, in the present case, the SC/ST Department has given decision on the interpretation of the policy which is without jurisdiction. Clause 21 of the policy dated 14.6.2013 clearly prescribes that any decision in respect of interpretation of the policy would be referred to the General Administration Department of the Government. However, in the present case, the SC/ST Department has given decision on the interpretation of the policy which is without jurisdiction. The petitioner has also filed the circular dated 29.8.2016 (Annexure P/9) by which the General Administration Department of the State Government has amended clause 6 of the policy dated 14.6.2013 adding the restriction of any family member of the deceased employee being in government service, the other member would not be eligible for compassionate appointment Since such amendment would be applicable prospectively, the same cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner. As the case of the petitioner has not been rejected but only his eligibility for compassionate appointment has been decided, the petitioner’s case can be directed to be processed further. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the contents of the Rejoinder and placed reliance on the judgment dated 6.9.2022 of Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.6689/2018 in the matters of Purendra Kumar Sinha Vs. State of CG and others and other connected petitions 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 8.11.2014 and the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was denied by the respondents vide impugned order dated 15.12.2015 on the ground that one of the family members of the deceased employee is already in government service. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be allowed in light of the order passed by this Court in WPS No.633/2015 in the matter of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi (supra). 10. Annexure R/1 is the letter dated 5.1.2015 filed by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be allowed in light of the order passed by this Court in WPS No.633/2015 in the matter of Swatantra Ratna Panigrahi (supra). 10. Annexure R/1 is the letter dated 5.1.2015 filed by the respondents. The operative part of this letter reads as under: ^^vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk tkjh iqujhf{kr funsZ'k fnukad 14-06-2013 Li"V gS] mDr funsZ'k esa dsoy uDlyh fgalk us 'kghn iqfyl ds ifjokj ds vykok vU; fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifjokj esa ;fn ,d lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS rks vU; lnL; dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugh gksxhA However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the circular dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under: ^^mDr Hkzkafr ds laca/k esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 14-06-2013 dks mlds tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls ykxw fd;k x;k gSA bldk vk'k; ;g gS fd ifji= fnukad 14-06-2013 ds iwoZ foHkkxksa esa yafcr vuqdEik fu;qfDr ds izdj.kksa esa rRle; ykxw ifji= fnukad 10-06-2003 rFkk mlds i'pkr~ tkjh fd, x, vU; ifji=ksa ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj gh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xh] fdUrq os lHkh ifji= fnukad 14-06-2013 ls fujLr ekus tk,axsA ifji= fnukad 14-06-2013 ds funsZ'k fnukad 14-06-2013 dks ,oa mlds i'pkr~ fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsodksa ds izdj.kksa esa gh ykxw gksaus vFkkZr~ u, funsZ'k iwoZ izpfyr izdj.kksa esa ykxw ugha gksaxs ,oa iwoZ izpfyr leLr ifji=] fnukad 14-06-2013 ls fujLr ekus tk,axsA** Annexure P/9 is the another circular dated 29.8.2016 regarding amendment in the earlier circulars as to the compassionate appointment. Para 2(1) of this circular being relevant is reproduced hereunder : ^^jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk bl foHkkx ds lanfHkZr ifji= dzekad ,Q 7&1@2012@1&3 fnukad 14-06-2013 esa fuEukuqlkj vkSj la’kks/ku djrk gS& ¼1½ funsZ'k dzekad 6 esa fuEukafdr iafDr;ka vkSj tksM+h tkrh gS%& ^^ijUrq e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj esa ;fn iwoZ ls gh ifjokj dk dksbZ vU; lnL; 'kkldh; lsok esa gS] rks ifjokj ds vU; fdlh Hkh lnL; dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugh gksxhA** 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has not disputed all these circulars and he has only placed reliance on the order of this Court in the matter of Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents/State has not disputed all these circulars and he has only placed reliance on the order of this Court in the matter of Purendra Kumar Sinha (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the said matter, observed in paras 62, 67 & 69 as under: 62. In N.C. Santosh (supra), a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 14,15,16,17 and 19, observed as follows : “14. This Court in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010)11 SCC 661 while reiterating that no aspirant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment, declared that the norms that are in force, when the application is actually considered, will be applicable. The employer’s right to modify the scheme depending on its policies was recognized in this judgment. Similarly in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 this Court reiterated that compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme and no aspirant can claim that his case should be considered as per the scheme existing on the date of death of the government employee. 15. However in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 in the context of major shift in policy, whereunder, instead of compassionate appointment (envisaged by the scheme dated 8.5.1993), ex gratia payment was proposed (under the circular dated 14.02.2005), the Court adopted a different approach. Noticing the extinguishment of, the right to claim appointment, this Court held the “dying in harness scheme” which was prevalent on the death of the employee, be the basis for consideration. 16. A two judges bench headed by Justice Uday U. Lalit noticed the Supreme Court’s view in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (supra) and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (supra) on one side and the contrary view in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) and felt the necessity of resolution of the conflicting question on whether the norms applicable on the date of death or on the date of consideration of application should apply. Accordingly, in State Bank of India & Others v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 , the Court referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled. 17. Accordingly, in State Bank of India & Others v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 , the Court referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench so that the conflicting views could be reconciled. 17. The above discussion suggest that the view taken in Canara Bank & Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) is to be reconciled with the contrary view of the coordinate bench, in the two earlier judgments. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong reliance placed by the appellant's counsel on Canara Bank & Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra) as also the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Uday Krishna Naik v. State of Karnataka & Others, it can not be said that the appellant's claim should be considered under the unamended provisions of the Rules prevailing on the date of death of the government employee. 19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 67. It is seen that with regard to the question as to whether the Policy in force on the date of death of the government employee is to be applied or the Policy at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment is to be considered, there is a divergence of opinion. It is already noticed that a reference was already made in Sheo Shankar Tewai (supra) for consideration of this issue by at least a Bench of minimum three Hon’ble Judges. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. It is to be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a view that it is the scheme that is holding the field on the date of consideration has to be applied. After noticing the judgment in N.C. Santosh (supra) delivered by a three-Judge Bench, a two-Judge Bench in Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra) had noted that the Policy which was in force on the date of death of the government employee should be the basis for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. It was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that where the benefit under the existing Policy was taken away or substituted with a lesser benefit, the Court directed the application of the new Policy, and in cases where the benefits under an existing Policy were enlarged by a modified Policy after the death of the employee, the Court applied only the Policy that was in force on the date of death of the employee. The same was also explained to the effect that such interpretation was fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. 69. In view of the above discussion, WPS No.2887/2017 is dismissed.” 12. In the present case also, as the petitioner’s father died on 8.11.2014, on application being moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, his name was recommended by letter dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure P/2). It is clear from the circular dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure P/8) that all the guidelines of circular dated 14.6.2013 are applicable to those cases where death of the government employee took place on or after 14.6.2013. The amendment in the circular dated 14.6.2013 was also made through circular dated 29.8.2016 after the death of petitioner’s father. It is clear from the circular dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure P/8) that all the guidelines of circular dated 14.6.2013 are applicable to those cases where death of the government employee took place on or after 14.6.2013. The amendment in the circular dated 14.6.2013 was also made through circular dated 29.8.2016 after the death of petitioner’s father. Thus, in view of circular of Annexure P/8, the subsequent amendment made in the circular dated 14.8.2013 after about two years of death of the petitioner’s father, shall not be applicable to the case of the petitioner and his case is to be considered on the basis of unamended circular dated 14.6.2013 in which there is no such bar that if any of the family members of the deceased employee is in government service, the other dependent family member of the deceased employee shall not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) being not sustainable in law is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per recommendation made in Annexure P/2 dated 31.12.2014, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.