JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi, appearing for the respondent - Nagar Palika waives service of notice of admission. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the common oral judgment dated 16/01/2023 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.5724 of 2021 and 5735 of 2021. The learned Single Judge, in set of facts of two employees, who have filed the application seeking compassionate appointment, has decided such case by the common order dated 16/01/2023. The present LPA deals with the employee who has filed SCA No.5735 of 2021. 3. Since we had found some discrepancy in the date of death of father of the appellant, as recorded in the impugned decision of the respondent - Nagar Palika dated 06/11/2020, we called for the death certificate issued by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation (RMC). Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate Mr.Gogia for the appellant has tendered a copy of the Death Certificate of father of the appellant, which indicates that the father of the appellant passed away on 20/01/2019. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Gogia appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is premised by recording incorrect facts, more particularly the date of death of father of the present appellant. He has submitted that father of the appellant was serving as a Daily Wager in the respondent - Nagar Palika and he, along with other employees, raised the industrial dispute, claiming regularization which culminated into the reference proceedings, wherein by the award dated 26/02/2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.23 of 1995, the Industrial Tribunal had directed the respondent - Nagar Palika to regularize the service of father of the appellant. It is submitted that the aforesaid award became final and ultimately by order dated 28/03/2019, the Division Bench rejected the LPA No.1143 of 2018 and after the rejection of the LPA filed by the respondent – Panchayat, on 10/08/2020, the appellant made an application for appointing him on compassionate ground on the post of his father, whose services were regularized since, during the interregnum period, the father of the appellant passed away on 20/01/2019. 5. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Gogia has further submitted that as per the scheme dated 18/10/2017 introduced by the State Government, the appellant again made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 02/09/2020, which has been rejected by the communication dated 06/11/2020. It is submitted that within the span of six months after his father was regularized, he has filed the present application and as per the Scheme, more particularly paragraph No.2(2) mentioned that the legal heir of deceased employee who has rendered minimum five years of regular service, is entitled for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the father of the appellant was ordered to be regularized right from the date of his appointment i.e. somewhere in the year 1992 and it can be said that he has completed more than five years of service and was a regular employee. 6. The second reason assigned by the respondent - Nagar Palika for rejecting the application is on the ground of delay as the same is beyond the specified period of six months. It is submitted that initially the appellant made an application on 25/04/2019, which was rejected by the respondent - Nagar Palika on 13/05/2019 and thus it can be said that the appellant has filed an application seeking compassionate appointment within a period of six months. Learned advocate Mr.Gogia, while inviting the attention to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge, has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petition by holding that the application filed by the appellant was beyond the period of six months and the father of the appellant was not a regular employee or permanent employee. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Gogia has referred to the communication dated 13/05/2019 issued by the respondent - Nagar Palika, wherein the Nagar Palika has mentioned that since appropriate approval is required to be obtained from the Government and the proposal is sent and pending consideration before the State Government, the Nagar Palika cannot resile from offering him the appointment. Learned Advocate Mr.Gogia for the appellant would therefore submit to allow the present LPA and to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned petition. 8. Learned Advocate Mr.Gogia for the appellant would therefore submit to allow the present LPA and to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned petition. 8. Opposing the submissions advanced by learned Advocate Mr.Gogia, learned Advocate Mr.Trivedi appearing for the respondent - Nagar Palika submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is precisely passed. He has referred to the scheme dated 18/10/2017 and has submitted that as per Clause No.7(a), the appellant was required to file an application within a period of six months after the demise of his father and since he has violated the aforesaid clause, including the Clause No.9, which mandates of filing an undertaking and also an application being not in proforma as prescribed under the scheme, the same was not considered. Moreover, it is submitted that the first application, which is preferred by the appellant on 25/04/2019, was in fact filed through the President of Shri Mahatma Gandhi Valmiki Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Jetpur as the Chief Officer of the Nagar Palika has categorically rejected the same by informing the President that the appellant has not yet filed the application. It is further submitted that after the order of regularization was passed, the appellant again made an application dated 02/09/2020 for the first time and that too without the proof and the details and hence, the same was rejected by the Chief Officer, Nagar Palika vide communication dated 06/11/2020. It is therefore urged that the present appeal may not be entertained and dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. The facts which are established from the record are that father of the appellant, who was serving as Safai Kamdar, passed away on 20/01/2019. Before he passed away, he along with other employees had raised an industrial dispute for regularization of service and the tribunal, by the award dated 26/02/2016 directed the respondent - Nagar Palika to regularize the service of the father of the appellant. The same was subject matter of challenge before this Court and ultimately by common order dated 28/03/2019, the Division Bench rejected the LPA filed by the respondent - Nagar Palika being LPA No.1143 of 2018. The same was subject matter of challenge before this Court and ultimately by common order dated 28/03/2019, the Division Bench rejected the LPA filed by the respondent - Nagar Palika being LPA No.1143 of 2018. After rejection of the LPA, the respondent - Nagar Palika passed an order dated 10/08/2020 regularizing the service of the employees, including the father of the appellant. It appears that by letter dated 25/04/2019, the President of Shri Mahatma Gandhi Valmiki Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Jetpur requested the respondent to appoint the present appellant on compassionate grounds. The Chief Officer, Nagar Palika informed the President that the appellant in fact has not personally filed any application seeking compassionate appointment and the said application is required to be filed within a period of six months after the demise of an employee. Along with this, another reason was also assigned that since the father of the appellant has not completed the five years of regular service and he was not appointed regularly, the case of the appellant cannot be considered under the scheme. Thus, unquestionably, the letter dated 25/04/2019 was addressed by the President of Shri Mahatma Gandhi Valmiki Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Jetpur at the behest of the appellant to grant him compassionate appointment. However, such communication is not produced on record. 11. At this stage, we may refer to the Scheme dated 18/10/2017, which has been adopted by the respondent - Nagar Palika. The said scheme is promulgated by the Urban Housing and Urban Development, Government of Gujarat. As per Clause No.2(2), the legal heirs or the dependent of Class-IV employees, who have worked for at least five years of regular service, are entitled to apply for compassionate appointment. Relevant Clause No.7, which has been considered by the learned Single Judge and incorporated in the impugned order, reads thus: "7. Time limit for submitting an application: (a) As per the policy of the scheme, an application complete in all respect is to be filed immediately on the death of concerned Safai Kamdar for getting compassionate appointment. Application filed after a period of six months of the death of concerned Safai Kamdar in any way will not be considered." 12. Time limit for submitting an application: (a) As per the policy of the scheme, an application complete in all respect is to be filed immediately on the death of concerned Safai Kamdar for getting compassionate appointment. Application filed after a period of six months of the death of concerned Safai Kamdar in any way will not be considered." 12. As per the limitation provided in the Scheme for making an application for claiming the compassionate appointment, the application was required to be filed by the dependent of the Safai Kamdar for getting compassionate appointment; within a period of six months and if the same is beyond the period of six months, the same is required to be rejected. 13. Clause No.9 of the said scheme is also relevant, which mentions about filing of an undertaking on behalf of the dependent of the deceased employee to the effect that he would maintain his family after having been appointed on compassionate grounds and will not ignore their interest and in case the appointee ignores the family members, the compassionate appointment will be terminated. Such an undertaking is to be filed as per Appendix-2 attached with the scheme. At this stage, we may reiterate the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the cases of compassionate appointment. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 , on the power of High Court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution while examining the scheme or policy of compassionate appointment, has held thus: “11. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of the policy. It is well- settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of a deceased government employee. [ Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana , 1994 4 SCC 138 , General Manager (D&PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwary, 2004 7 SCC 271 , Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Teneja , 2004 7 SCC 265 , State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh , 2007 4 SCC 778 , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. [ Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana , 1994 4 SCC 138 , General Manager (D&PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwary, 2004 7 SCC 271 , Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Teneja , 2004 7 SCC 265 , State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh , 2007 4 SCC 778 , Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra , 2008 11 SCC 384 , Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami , 2012 11 SCC 307 , State Bank of India Vs. Surya Narain Tripathi , 2014 15 SCC 739 and Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar , 2015 7 SCC 412 ] 12 For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has virtually re-written the terms of the policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the policy. This is impermissible.” 14. Again in the case of Bank of Baroda and Ors. vs. Baljit Singh , (2023) 13 SCC 343 , the Supreme Court has held thus: “13. In Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (supra)it was observed that the family benefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of deceased employee on the facts therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment by the Steel Authority of India - Respondent in the said case. The said case proceeds on its own facts. The said judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the instant case as the 1998 Scheme specifically disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death. The object is that it is only when a deceased employees family is in penury and without any source of livelihood when the employee died in harness, compassionate appointment can be considered. Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succor on the death of the employee in harness. The same has been observed in General Manager (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary (supra). The same has been observed in General Manager (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary (supra). In N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants. Therefore, the case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent Scheme. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar, (supra), this Court has observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents of deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the terms of the policy which are framed by the States/Employers. 14. It is to be noted that in the instant case, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking appointment on compassionate basis which was decreed by the Trial Court and upheld and affirmed by the High Court. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand, (2019) 4 SCC 285 , it has been categorically held that a direction by a High Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment dehors the terms of the policy is impermissible as it would amount to re-writing the terms of the policy. This aspect has been overlooked by the High Court in the instant case. In a similar vein, in Indian Bank vs. Promila , (2020) 2 SCC 729 , it has been observed that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per the applicable scheme and the courts cannot substitute a scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. The aforesaid dicta would also apply to a suit filed seeking the relief of compassionate appointment.” 15. Thus, the legal precedent, on exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution while examining the cases of compassionate appointment, is no more res integra. The aforesaid dicta would also apply to a suit filed seeking the relief of compassionate appointment.” 15. Thus, the legal precedent, on exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution while examining the cases of compassionate appointment, is no more res integra. The Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot issue any direction to consider the case for compassionate appointment de hors the terms of the policy as it would amount to re-writing the policy, since the dependents of deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and hence, they must fulfil the terms of the policy which are framed by the States / Employers. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the appellant has miserably failed to point out that he filed an application seeking compassionate appointment as per the requirement of the scheme, more particularly the proforma prescribed in the Scheme along with the undertaking. After the order of regularization was passed, for the first time, the appellant personally, filed an application seeking compassionate appointment on 02/09/2020. A bare perusal of the same also reveals that it is not in the proforma, as mentioned in the Scheme and no undertaking is filed by the appellant. It is also beyond the period of six months from the demise of his father on 20/01/2019. On this sole reason, we decline to accept the case of the appellant. Hence, we are not inclined to deal with the issue of completion of five years’ regular service rendered by the deceased employee. 17. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly it is rejected.