JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, he has been denied compassionate appointment and further, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in-Harness Rules on a suitable post, according to his educational qualification forthwith. 3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that the father of the petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer with the respondents-Insurance Company at Divisional Office, Bijnor. Petitioner’s father died still while in service on 16.04.2013, leaving behind the petitioner (son), his wife Smt. Indresh Devi, Smt. Monika (married daughter) and two unmarried daughters-Km. Soniya and Km. Shivani. The widow of the deceased employee of the respondents-Company Smt. Indresh Devi had moved an application to the respondent No.3-Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Annexxure No.7) on 23.03.2014, requesting therein to offer compassionate appointment to his son-the petitioner. The said application remained pending and undecided, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition No.1760 of 2017 (S/S) Shubham Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2017, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks’ from the date of passing that order and the Competent Authority was further directed to examine petitioner’s claim and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of presentation of certified copy of that order. 4. Petitioner submitted a representation on 25.08.2017 in compliance of the above direction of this Court. The respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order dated 28.09.2017 came up with a case that the Insurance Company has never received any application for compassionate appointment or for lump-sum monetary compensation, yet the representation was rejected by the respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order on merits. 5. Petitioner submitted a representation on 25.08.2017 in compliance of the above direction of this Court. The respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order dated 28.09.2017 came up with a case that the Insurance Company has never received any application for compassionate appointment or for lump-sum monetary compensation, yet the representation was rejected by the respondent-Insurance Company vide impugned order on merits. 5. It is further reflected from the order dated 28.09.2017 that the compassionate appointment was denied to the petitioner simply for the reason that the scheme for compassionate appointment was dispensed with in the Insurance Company w.e.f.01.06.2002 until 31.10.2014 and since, during that period, the scheme for Lumpsum Monetary Compensation was in vogue in lieu of the compassionate appointment, it is stated by the respondent-Insurance Company in the impugned order that the petitioner is entitled to get a Lumpsum Monetary Compensation instead of compassionate appointment, as his father died on 16.04.2013, when the scheme was not there. 6. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner is before this Court. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-Insurance Company on 10.04.2014 and it has been categorically stated in the said counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner was expired on 16.04.2013 and on the date of his death, no scheme for compassionate appointment was in force. In Para 4 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that earlier, the scheme of compassionate appointment was dispensed by the Company w.e.f. 01.06.2002 until 31.10.2014. A new scheme for compassionate appointment was brought by the respondent-Insurance Company in the year 2014 w.e.f. 01.11.2014. Since, father of the petitioner died in between when the scheme for compassionate appointment was not in vogue in the Insurance Company, therefore, he is only entitled to get Lumpsum Monetary Compensation instead of compassionate appointment as per the scheme prevailing during that time and the Insurance Company is ready to pay it to the petitioner. 8. It is reflected from the pleadings of the parties that there was scheme for compassionate appointment available in the respondents-Insurance Company prior to the death of petitioner’s father on or before 01.06.2002 and subsequent to the death of his father, again the Scheme for compassionate appointment was launched w.e.f. 01.11.2014. 8. It is reflected from the pleadings of the parties that there was scheme for compassionate appointment available in the respondents-Insurance Company prior to the death of petitioner’s father on or before 01.06.2002 and subsequent to the death of his father, again the Scheme for compassionate appointment was launched w.e.f. 01.11.2014. Since, father of the petitioner died on 16.04.2013 before launching of the new scheme for compassionate appointment w.e.f. 01.11.2014, there is justification with the respondents-Insurance Company to deny the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. For ready reference, Clause-8 of the New Scheme 2014 is reproduced below:- “Clause 8-Time Limit for considering applications: The Scheme comes into force prospectively from 01st November, 2014. Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered up to five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds taking place on or after 01st November, 2014 and decision to be taken on merit in each case.” 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme for compassionate appointment, which was launched by the Insurance Company w.e.f. 01.11.2014, is a beneficial piece of subordinate legislation at the hands of Insurance Company, therefore, that benefit should also be extended to the petitioner, as his father died only one and a half year prior to the launching of the Scheme. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company strenuously argued that similar controversy has been cropped up before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court and both the Courts did not find favour of offering appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased employee of the Company, rather, the Lumpsum payment was paid as ex-gratia payment to the family of such employee, who died in between. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in the similar set of circumstances, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.309 of 2019, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Priyanka Agarwal, has dealt with the same controversy and refused compassionate appointment to the respondent and instead of that, ex-gratia payment was directed to be made to the respondent in that Special Appeal. Priyanka Agarwal, has dealt with the same controversy and refused compassionate appointment to the respondent and instead of that, ex-gratia payment was directed to be made to the respondent in that Special Appeal. The same controversy regarding applicability of Scheme for compassionate appointments was also cropped up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8842-8855 of 2022 The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., wherein, again the benefit of a scheme, which was in vogue at the time of the death of deceased-employee, was subject matter of the controversy, Hon’ble Apex Court held that since, compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment, the Scheme for compassionate appointment should be construed strictly. Thus, Scheme, which is in vogue at the time of the death of an employee, will be applicable for considering the claim for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employee. This Court cannot look into the merits of the Scheme, as the same was never put to challenge by the petitioner. Moreover, as per the pleadings of parties, there is no foundation to submit the Scheme being irrational and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. Respondents-Insurance Company are directed to pay the ex-gratia payment/Lumpsum Monetary Compensation immediately to the petitioner as early as possible but not later than 30 days, if already not paid. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.