Order : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “A. By an appropriate writ, order direction, the order dated 16.08.2005 (Annex-13) may kindly be declared unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the deletion of permanent disabled employee from the order dated 15.02.2001 (Annex.12) may kindly be held to be unconstitutional and such deletion be declared declared illegal and unconstitutional. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Order dated 15.02.2001 (Annex-12) may kindly be restored alongwith the provision regarding permanent disabled employee granting compassionate appointment. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed appointment to to afford compassionate the dependent of the petitioner if found eligible in the light of the guidelines dated (Annex.04) appointment of preferential basis. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order that rejecting the claim of the petitioner for affording appointment to his dependent on compassionate grounds upon the permanently disability suffered may kindly be quashed and set aside. F. By writ, appropriate an order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner's son namely "Sahdev Ram" as his male dependent for the purpose of affording him appointment ground on compassionate G. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the male dependent of the petitioner namely "Sahdev Ram" may kindly be afforded appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his father on the post of LDC/other suitable post from the date the same was applied for or from the date the writ petition was filed by the petitioner with all consequential benefits. H. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the petitioner and the petitioner's male dependent with same treatment as extended to Shri Jeevan Ram and his male dependent. I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner's case may kindly be decided in light of the Judgement passed in SBCWP No.10222/2018 Jeevan Ram V/s State & Ors. Decided vide order dated 02.08.2019 (Annex.10).” 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 96% in the year 2005 while in service. I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner's case may kindly be decided in light of the Judgement passed in SBCWP No.10222/2018 Jeevan Ram V/s State & Ors. Decided vide order dated 02.08.2019 (Annex.10).” 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 96% in the year 2005 while in service. Because of the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, his son applied for compassionate appointment in terms of the guidelines/Rules prevailing at that point of time which provided for compassionate appointment to dependent of an employee who was permanently disabled while in service. However, the application of the petitioner’s son was rejected on 29.07.2005 on the premise that there had been an amendment in the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules , 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) and as per the amended provision, no compassionate appointment could be granted to the dependent of a permanently disabled employee. 3. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.07.2005, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6398/2005 (Sahdev Ram vs. Director, AVVNL & Ors.) was preferred by son of the petitioner which was ultimately dismissed on 20.02.2014. The said order attained finality as the same was not challenged further. 4. However, an application again in the year 2020 was filed by the petitioner himself with a prayer for affording compassionate appointment to his son. 5. The sole ground raised in the present writ petition is that in the years 2017 & 2019, certain writ petitions preferred by other similarly situated employees were allowed and the appeal preferred by the Department against the said orders were dismissed. Hence, the compassionate appointment to the dependent of the said employees was afforded by the Department. In view of the same, the petitioner too deserves the same treatment and his son too deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing on the above ground, in addition, submits that all said and done, now the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2023’) have come into effect and as per Rule 11 of the said Rules, the son of the petitioner is definitely entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submits that as provided in the said Rules itself, the same would have an overriding effect and hence, the earlier rejection of the application of the petitioner’s son shall be of no consequence. 7. Learned counsel therefore submits that in terms of Rules of 2023 which has an overriding effect, son of the petitioner deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. 8. Per contra counsel appearing for the respondent AVVNL submits that firstly, the Rules of 2023 have been brought into effect from 26.04.2023 and would definitely not govern the petitioner’s case. Secondly, the earlier provision which was applicable in the year 2005 also provided for compassionate appointment on certain conditions, one of them being the employee having sought compulsory retirement. The petitioner never applied for compulsory retirement but completed his tenure of service and superannuated on 30.06.2020. 9. Lastly, the application as filed by the petitioner’s son was dismissed way back in the year 2005 and the writ petition as preferred by him was also dismissed in the year 2014. The said order attained finality as the same was not challenged further. The present petition filed in the year 2020 cannot be entertained qua the same order dated 29.07.2005 which was assailed in the earlier writ petition. 10. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 11. This Court is of the clear opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons: (i) Firstly, admittedly, the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner’s son was dismissed in the year 2014 vide which the order dated 29.07.2005 refusing to grant compassionate appointment to him was affirmed. The prayer as made in the present writ petition if allowed would indirectly amount to the review of the order passed way back in the year 2014. (ii) Secondly, it is not disputed that the petitioner remained in service and was neither granted any compulsory retirement nor did he avail the same because of his permanent disability. Admittedly, he availed all the benefits of his service including promotions and after availing the same, superannuated in the year 2020. The present application dated 23.01.2020 for compassionate appointment filed just before his superannuation (30.06.2020) on the ground that he was permanently disabled could not have been entertained. Admittedly, he availed all the benefits of his service including promotions and after availing the same, superannuated in the year 2020. The present application dated 23.01.2020 for compassionate appointment filed just before his superannuation (30.06.2020) on the ground that he was permanently disabled could not have been entertained. (iii) Thirdly, no relief can be granted on basis of the fact that any relief was subsequently granted to some similarly situated person when the petitioner himself had already assailed the rejection of his application at that point of time. The order of rejection of his application having been affirmed by this Court and not been assailed further, any relief granted to some other person in his petition would not entitle the petitioner to claim the same relief. (iv) Lastly, the claim of parity by the petitioner can even otherwise be of no avail as a bare perusal of the orders of similarly situated persons as placed on record makes it evident that they pertain to the period when the rule of granting compassionate appointment to dependents of permanently disabled employees was in vogue. Admittedly, the provision to that extent was deleted in the year 2005 and even first application preferred by the petitioner’s son was filed after the deletion of the said provision. Meaning thereby, on the date when the petitioner’s son applied, the rule itself was deleted. Therefore also, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner on the said count. Further, the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner’s son having already been dismissed on the said ground, no relief in the present writ petition can be granted. (v) So far as the Rules of 2023 is concerned, by no stretch of imagination, the same can apply to the petitioner qua a cause of action which arose in the year 2005. 12. In view of the above observations, no ground for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed 13. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.