ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the competent authority has rightly rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner’s father is getting pension of Rs.4,100/- / Rs.4,466/- per month? 2. This question arises in the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner’s mother namely, Smt. Godavari Bai died in harness while working as Labour leading to making of application by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 20-6-2012 by the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Raipur, holding that the petitioner’s father is alive and getting pension, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner questioned the order dated 20-6-2012 before this Court in WPS No.4966/2012 in which a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 18-12-2015, set aside / quashed the order dated 20-6-2012 and directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules and also keeping in view the financial cap fixed by the State for consideration of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 17-2-2016, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected holding that his father is receiving family pension and moreover, the annual income / earning of the family is Rs.68,000/-, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the policy of the State Government dated 21-9-2007 (Annexure R-1) admissible at the time of death of the petitioner's mother. Feeling aggrieved against the order impugned dated 17-2-2016 (Annexure P-1), this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has made claim for compassionate apportionment by submitting claim form Annexure R-2 stating therein that his father’s monthly pension of Rs.4,100/- has been included in the family earning which makes it Rs.68,000/- per year i.e. over and above Rs.60,000/-, but pension of the petitioner’s father is not required to be included as per the policy dated 21-9-2007 and their annual income is Rs.18,800/-. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, submits that only the deceased pension has too be included and pension of the petitioner’s father is not to be included and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, submits that only the deceased pension has too be included and pension of the petitioner’s father is not to be included and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 7. This is the second round of litigation, in first round, it has been remitted and now, it has again been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s mother died and his father is pensioner getting Rs.4,100/-per month. 8. The criteria for compassionate appointment filed by the State i.e. the circular dated 21-9-2007 (Annexure R-1) states as under: - NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky; nkÅ dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj Øa0 ,Q 7&2@2007@1&3jk;iqj] fnukad 21 flrEcj 2007 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v?;{k NRrhlxढ+ jktLo eaMy fcykliqj leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr dysDVlZ] NRrhlxढ+A fo"k;%& 'kkldh; lsodksa dh vlkekf;d e`R;q gksus ij muds ifjokj ds vkfJr lnL; dks ukSdjh esa izkFkfedrkA lanHkZ%& bl foHkkx dk ifji= Øekad ,Q 7&4@2002@1&3] fnukad 10-06-2003 ,oa i= Øekad 21@517@2006@1&3 fnukad 05-01-2007 &&&&&&&0&&&&&&&&& lanfHkZr ifji=ksa }kjk 'kkldh; lsodksa dh vlkekf;d e`R;q gksus ij muds ifjokj ds vkfJr lnL; dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr fn;s tkus laca/kh funsZ'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s gSA foHkkxh; lela[;d ifji= fnukad 10@06@2003 dh dafMdk 3¼8½ tks ifji= fnukad 05@01@2007 }kjk la'kksf/kr :i esa LFkkfir gS] ds LFkku ij fuEukuqlkj dafMdk izfrLFkkfir dh tkrh gS%& 3¼8½ tgk¡ ifjokj esa dekus okyk fo?keku gks%& **e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds fo/kok@fo/kqj vFkok vfookfgr i= esa ls dksbZ dekus okyk ekStwn gS] rFkk bu lHkh dh ¼e`rd isa'ku dks NksM+dj½ dqy feykdj okf"kZd vk; :i;s 60]000@& ¼lkB gtkj½ ls vf/kd gS rks ml fLFkfr esa fo/kok@fo/kqj vFkok iq=] iq=h ;k vU; fdlh dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr ugha nh tk;sxhA** ;g vkns'k tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls izHkko'khy gksaxsA NRrhlxढ+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj lgh@& ¼Ogh0ds0 jk;½ mi lfpo NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid policy for compassionate appointment would show that yearly income of the deceased family should not be more than Rs.60,000/- excluding pension. A careful perusal of the aforesaid policy for compassionate appointment would show that yearly income of the deceased family should not be more than Rs.60,000/- excluding pension. In the instant case, in the application form for compassionate appointment (page 41 of the writ petition) submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner himself has disclosed that the husband of the deceased Government servant i.e. the petitioner’s father is getting pension of Rs.4,100/- / Rs.4,466/- per month. 10.The question is, whether that pension of the petitioner’s father would be included or not in computing the yearly income of Rs.60,000/-? 11. The competent authority by its order dated 17-2-2016 (Annexure P-1) held that the petitioner's family income is Rs.68,000/- per year including the deceased husband’s / petitioner’s father’s pension of Rs.4,466/- per month and therefore he would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 12. In the matter of Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289 , the Supreme Court has held that family pension is not to be taken into account for granting the relief of compassionate appointment, and observed as under: - “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. ...” 13. The case of the petitioner is sought to be distinguished by the State counsel that family pension which the petitioner’s father is getting would be excluded from the total income, as the petitioner's father is already getting family pension of Rs.4,466/-. The difference between a pension and a family pension is that the pension plan is a benefit that an employee receives after retiring. However, in the case of the family pension, the retirement benefit is passed on to the family members after the death of the pensioner. The difference between a pension and a family pension is that the pension plan is a benefit that an employee receives after retiring. However, in the case of the family pension, the retirement benefit is passed on to the family members after the death of the pensioner. The pension is usually paid to the spouse or dependent children of the employee. 14. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , while dealing with a case of compassionate appointment, held that the Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to family of deceased employee, on facts, was not a substitute for compassionate appointment, and observed as under: - “19. Mr. Bhasme further contended that family members of a large number of the employees have already availed of the Family Benefit Scheme and as such it would be taken to be otherwise more beneficial to the employee concerned. We are not called upon to assess the situation but the fact remains that having due regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whatever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that in the present case, in the circular dated 21-9-2007 (Annexure R-1), there is express exclusion of pension of the deceased employee, but there is no express exclusion of pension of spouse of the deceased employee i.e. the father of the petitioner, if the State wanted to include the pension of the spouse, the competent authority would have expressly included the pension of the spouse while computing the income of the family members of the deceased employee and it could have been provided that regular pension of the spouse will be computed while computing the income of the family member. 16. As such, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma (supra), further taking into consideration the fact that there is express exclusion of pension of the deceased Government servant which also includes regular pension of the deceased spouse and there is no express inclusion of pension of the spouse of the deceased employee and also considering the meagre sum of Rs.4,466/- per month which is being given to the petitioner’s father only for the benefit of the pensioner / petitioner’s father and the present living cost is too high, the impugned order dated 17-2-2016 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the discussion made herein-above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).