ORDER : Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken for final disposal. 2. Appellant impugns order dated 20.09.2024 whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of with a direction to the appellant to consider the case of respondent afresh of grant of compassionate appointment. 3. Father of the respondent was working as a Watchman in a work-charge establishment with the appellant/Department. Father of respondent died while in employment on 02.07.2015. Respondent filed an application on 15.09.2016 for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected on 31.05.2017. Thereafter, respondent filed a writ petition before this Court being WP No.12012/2017 which has now been disposed of on 24.04.2024 directing appellants to decide representation within 90 days. Said representation has also been rejected and consequently, respondent filed subject writ petition being WP No.27453/2024 which has been allowed by impugned order dated 20.09.2024. 4. We may note that there was a policy formulated by the appellants for grant of benefit to the legal heirs of decease-employee. Initial policy dated 29.09.2014 provided for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs on the demise of serving employee who died in harness, in case he was in the work charge establishment and a contingency employee. Said policy was amended on 31.08.2016, when it was introduced for the first time that compassionate appointment would be given to an eligible family member of such an employee who dies while in service. 5. As per the respondent, respondent filed an application on 15.09.2016 for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of amended policy dated 31.08.2016. The case of appellant/State is that the said policy was prospective in nature and was applicable to cases of employees who died in harness, after the policy was introduced on 31.08.2016. It was contended that since father of respondent had expired on 02.07.2015, he was covered under the 2014 Policy and accordingly, entitled only to the compensation amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs. 6. As per the appellants, the policy formulated by the earlier circular dated 29.09.2014 was to grant compensation and not "compassionate appointment". However, for the first time by circular dated 31.08.2016, a new policy was incorporated for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. 6. As per the appellants, the policy formulated by the earlier circular dated 29.09.2014 was to grant compensation and not "compassionate appointment". However, for the first time by circular dated 31.08.2016, a new policy was incorporated for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. Learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of another Single Judge in WP No.19736/2019 wherein learned Single Judge has noticed a difference of opinion between a judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.05.2019 in WA No.601/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. vs. Sonu Jatav) and judgment dated 19.06.2019 (Harish vs. Public Health Engineering Department). Learned Single Judge has also referred to judgment of Division Bench dated 19.06.2019 in case of Harish vs. Public Health Engineering Department where the Division Bench held that the circular dated 31.08.2016 was prospective in nature and would not apply in case for compassionate appointment, prior to the date of circular. Learned Single Judge in WP No.19739/2019 (Manoj Gurjar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 23.11.2023, held that as Sonu Jatav (Supra) was a judgment prior in time to Harish (supra), the same would be prevail and accordingly, applied the ratio of judgment of Sonu Jatav (supra). 8. Though, it appears that there is a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court, we may note that this issue is no loner res- integra because the same has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157 . In the case of Ashish Awasthi (supra), the applicant's father had expired on 08.10.2015 and as in the present case reference was made to the policies/circulars dated 29.09.2014 and 31.08.2016. The Supreme Court noticed that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased- employee was the 2014 Policy which provided for a compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and did not provide for any benefit of compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court has held that the settled proposition of law for appointment on compassionate ground is that the policy prevalent at the time of death of deceased-employee only is required to be considered and not any subsequent policy. 9. In the instant case, father of the respondent expired on 02.07.2015, when the 2014 Policy was in force and the policy dated 31.08.2016 was introduced only thereafter. 10. 9. In the instant case, father of the respondent expired on 02.07.2015, when the 2014 Policy was in force and the policy dated 31.08.2016 was introduced only thereafter. 10. We may note that prior to 2014, there was a policy dated 18.08.2008 which had provided for compensation to be granted of a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh which was increased by the 2014 Policy to a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Thereafter, benefit was changed from compensation to compassionate appointment by the policy dated 31.08.2016. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 , where the case of an employee covered by the policy dated 18.08.2008 was being considered. The Supreme Court also referred to a circular dated 21.03.2017 issued by the State Government which clarified that the compassionate appointment for employees of work charge in contingency fund was enforced w.e.f. 31.08.2016 and prior cases were only eligible for "compassionate grant" and not for "compassionate appointment". 11. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashish Awasthi (surpa) and Amit Shrivas (supra), it is clear that the policy in force on the date of death of father of the respondent would be applicable and said policy was the 2014 policy. Thus case of respondent could only be considered under the 2014 Policy, irrespective of date when the application is filed. We find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for respondent that the relevant date would be the date on which the application is filed and not the date of death. In the present case the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been filed after the 2016 Policy came into force. 12. In our view, said application with relate back to the date of death of the father of the respondent, which is the date which gives rise to a cause of action to file such an application. It will be immaterial as to the date when the application is filed. 12. In our view, said application with relate back to the date of death of the father of the respondent, which is the date which gives rise to a cause of action to file such an application. It will be immaterial as to the date when the application is filed. We may also note that in case such an argument was to be accepted accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation in as much as the family of a deceased employee in immediate need of help and immediately applies for grant of compassionate benefit being covered by the earlier policy would only get monetary compensation and and the family of a deceased employee which is not in immediate need and can wait like in the present case to submit an application after a gap of about a year, would get higher benefit of compassionate appointment. This can certainly not be the intention of the legislature. 13. Furthermore, reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of Manoj Gurjar (supra) is also misplaced. For the reason that in Manoj Gurjar (supra) after considering the difference of opinion between two division benches makes a reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashish Awasthi (supra) but without considering the ratio of the judgment in Ashish Awasthi (supra) simply held that the amended policy would be applicable. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. The decision of the appellants in denying the respondent compassionate appointment is consequently, upheld. 15. Respondent shall be entitled to compassionate grant of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Since the learned counsel for parties are unaware as to whether said amount has been paid or not, we direct that the amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs be paid to the entitled legal heir of the deceased-employee within a period of four weeks, if not already paid, alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till payment. 16. The appeal is accordingly, allowed in the above terms.