Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order 21.9.2021 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the claim of petitioner afresh in accordance with law, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.12.2014 and the petitioner being son of the deceased employee has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.01.2015 subsequently on 29.08.2016, his application was dismissed on 02.07.2015 on the ground that in the family of the petitioner his brother is already in government service. The petition was filed against the said order bearing WPS No.3324 of 2016 on 28.07.2016. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government has framed amended policy for grant of compassionate appointment on 29.08.2016, according to which if anyone in the family member is a government servant than the person concerned will not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 3324/2016 ( Ghanshyam Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ) was heard and the matter was remanded back to the authorities concerned to explore the dependency and also to see whether the brother is giving assistance to the petitioner or not. Subsequently, on 21.09.2021 the respondent authorities have dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground that one of the family members i.e. his brother is in government service. As such, the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment. The petitioner has filed another petition bearing WPS No.5857/2021, challenging and questioning the order dated 21.09.2021 the matter was again remanded back by this Court for considering the aspects it was found by this Court that the respondent authorities have not conducted proper enquiry in order to determine whether the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased employee or not and whether the brothers are giving assistance or not. The State Government went before the Division Bench by filing a writ appeal against the said order of remand. The writ appeal was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner while remanding back the matter which is the present matter, as such the petitioner is praying that since the ground for dismissal of compassionate appointment is not in accordance with law, as at the time of death of the deceased employee, the policy for compassionate appointment debarring the petitioner, in case one of the family members are in government servant is not in existence and as such the respondent authorities have committed illegality while dismissing the petition for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family members are in government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.5077 of 2017 ( Naresh Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ). Vide order dated 25.09.2017 it was held that while framing a question in para-1 and it has been dealt in para-5 stating that since the circular was not in existence and was not in force at the time of death of the petitioner as such, the benefit of said circular would not be given to the respondents and the case of the petitioner would be considered on some different aspect and not on the basis of circular issued in the year 2016. In the earlier circular dated 14.06.2013, it was not the condition precedent that if any family members are in government service than the petitioner would not be given compassionate appointment. On the contrary there is condition that the dependent of deceased employee would be given compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Shushma Gosai and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1989) IV SCC 468 . According to the petitioner that the circulars are required to be seen in prospective manner. They cannot be taken into consideration in retrospective manner, when the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.12.2014, the circular pertaining to year 2016 was not in existence in which it has been stated that the person concerned will not be given compassionate appointment, if one of the family member is a government servant. They cannot be taken into consideration in retrospective manner, when the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.12.2014, the circular pertaining to year 2016 was not in existence in which it has been stated that the person concerned will not be given compassionate appointment, if one of the family member is a government servant. As such, this ground cannot be taken by the respondent authorities and only on the basis of dependency the petitioner can be granted compassionate appointment. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the date of consideration of the applicant’s application, the existing policy would be considered and if on the date of consideration, the policy is existing, it will be governed by the policy concerned. In the present case, according to the counsel for the respondent the death of the deceased employee occurred on 28.12.2014 and the applicant’s application was considered firstly on 02.07.2015, however, though on the said date this policy was not in existence but since upon remand the policy came into existence and accordingly it was decided on the basis of subsequent decision, as such, it will be governed by the policy which is in existence, at the time of deciding application irrespective of the fact that the death occured before the date of implementation of this policy. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after going through pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, the question for consideration would be whether at the time of death of the father of the petitioner on 28.12.2014 as also on the date of filing of application for grant of compassionate appointment by the petitioner on 17.01.2015, there was any policy for debarring the petitioner to get appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that other members of the family are working as employee of State Government and whether the amended policy for compassionate appointment dated 29.08.2016 can be taken with retrospective effect for the death of employee who died in harness prior to 29.08.2016. 6. 6. Admittedly in this case, the deceased Ramswarup Sahu expired on 28.12.2024 in harness and admittedly on the said date the policy dated 29.08.2016 was not in existence and in that particular time when the deceased employee died in harness only thing which was to be considered was whether the person who is claiming compassionate appointment was dependent upon the employee or not ? 7. However, the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been dismissed on the ground that two brothers of the petitioner were in employment with the State Government, as such the petitioner can not be granted compassionate appointment. 8. It is pertinent to mention this fact here that on the prevailing date, the policy which was in existence speaks that the dependent of the deceased employee can move an application for grant of compassionate appointment and only thing which is required to be enquired was that the concerned person is dependent upon the employee or not. 9. In the present case, the brothers who were employed with State Government have separated themselves and they were residing separately and the petitioner was unemployed and fully dependent upon his father, who was looking over them. The mother of the petitioner i.e. widow of the deceased employee was also dependent upon the deceased employee, as such if the existing policy on the date of death of employee would be taken into consideration then certainly the petitioner would be entitled to get compassionate appointment. In this respect, there is a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa , reported in (2021) 20 SCC 707 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect and has categorically held that the policy would be considered on the date of death of the deceased and not in interminate and variable factors meaning thereby that the date of death is important for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment based on the existing policy. In para 20 & 21 of the said judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under : “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. In para 20 & 21 of the said judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under : “20. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee; and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed factor that does not change. The next date, namely, the date of consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 government servants die in harness on 1-1-2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29-5-2020 and 2-6-2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on 1-6-2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before 1-6-2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after 1-6-2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable d factor. 21. Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8-12-2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft Notification on 20-6-2012. The final Notification was issued on 11-7-2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma C.B. on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma C.B. came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 10. Now, coming to the facts of the present case also, it is an admitted position that death of the deceased in harness was on 28.12.2014 and on that particular date the policy with the condition that if other family members are in government service was not in existence. The current policy dated 29.08.2016 was not in existence, as such the aforesaid policy which was not in existence at the time of death of the employee could not and cannot be taken into consideration. The policy dated 29.08.2016 can be applied with prospective manner and not in retrospective manner. The current policy dated 29.08.2016 was not in existence, as such the aforesaid policy which was not in existence at the time of death of the employee could not and cannot be taken into consideration. The policy dated 29.08.2016 can be applied with prospective manner and not in retrospective manner. Accordingly, the first issue in respect of whether at the time of death of the father of the petitioner on 28.12.2014 as also on the date of filing of application for grant of compassionate appointment by the petitioner on 17.01.2015, there was no such policy for debarring the petitioner to get appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that other members of the family are working as employee of State Government is held to be erroneous while holding that the policy would be considered on the date of death of the deceased and not in interminate and variable factors meaning thereby that the date of death is important for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment based on the existing policy. 11. Now the second question for consideration is whether the policy dated 29.08.2016 would be with retrospective effect is hereby answered that the policy which came into existence on 29.08.2016 cannot be taken into consideration with retrospective effect and accordingly, the dismissal of the application for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 21.09.2021 can not be approved as such impugned order dated 21.09.2021 is hereby quashed. Since on the date of death of father of the petitioner there was no such condition in the policy that the person could not be given compassionate appointment on the ground that one of the family member is in government service, as such, the contention raised by the respondent authorities are hereby rejected and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 12. Accordingly this petition is hereby allowed as observed above. The respondent authorities are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of death of his father after due compliance within a period of 90 days from the production of copy of this order.