JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner, Shalika Sharma, being widow of Late Shri Parmesh Kumar, has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned communications dated 10th July 2018 Annexure A-1 (Colly) conveyed on 06.02.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant as Clerk in daily wages under the respondent department (SSA/RMSA) forthwith according to policy decision taken under item No.16 dated 12th Aug, 2013 [Annexure A-2].” 2. Case of the petitioner as set up byLearned Counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Parmesh Kumar, died during service while serving as an accountant under the State Project Director [SSA/RMSA] at DIET, Mandi, on 21.06.2015. After the death of her husband, the petitioner being a graduate as per Annexure A-4 and having undergone two years of Elementary Teachers Training Course and in view the dependency, applied for employment in the month of September 2016 under the Kith & Kin Policy. However, the decision taken by the Finance department on 29.10.2016 {not conveyed} and reiterated on 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1], not to concur in the proposal. It is in this backdrop that petitioner has approached this Court, seeking quashing of the Rejection Orders dated 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1], with prayer to appoint her as Clerk on the same analogy on which employment as Clerk on daily wages has been given to another similar dependent, namely Mrs. Bhawna on 12.08.2015, [Annexure P-7]; with all consequential benefits. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondents 1 to 3 have filed Reply-affidavit dated 05.08.2024 of State Project Director [SSA/RMSA]: (i) Para 2 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that petitioner has neither any legal and fundamental right and no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the case of the petitioner was re-considered/re-examined and petitioner has been appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 03.03.2023 after completing all codal formalities. In Para 3 of Reply-affidavit, the Respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of State Bank of India & Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 , to assert that the claim for compassionate appointment lies within the discretionary powers of the Authority in terms of the Scheme and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In Para 6 (iii) of the Reply-Affidavit, Respondents-State Authorities have admitted that in terms of its 37th Executive Committee Meeting held on 12.08.2013, decision was taken that dependents of deceased employees of this Society shall be appointed on compassionate grounds in the Society on Daily Wage basis. It is further averred in this Para that on receipt of complete case, the proposal was sent to the Government for its approval, but the same was rejected by the Finance Department. The operative part of the reply-affidavit, reads as under:- “2. That neither any legal and fundamental right of the petitioner has ever been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action has accrued to her to file and maintain this petition in view of the settled position of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, it is submitted that the matter regarding compassionate appointment to the petitioner was re-considered/re-examined and the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 03.03.2023 after completing all the codal formalities. It is also further submitted that no person who applied for providing the compassionate appointment after the present petitioner has been offered appointment before03.03.2023. 3. That it is also submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India & other vs Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 as under:- “The High Court also failed to appreciate that the appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment was at the discretion of the authority which was to be exercised keeping in view of scheme and the objective/rational behind it. It was submitted that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Moreover, the public office is not heritable. 6(iii). That the contents of Para 6(iii) are admitted to the extent that vide 37th Executive Committee Meeting held on 12.08.2013, it was approved that the dependents of the deceased employees of the society shall be appointed on the compassionate ground in the society on daily wage basis is submitted that also call for no submissions, being a matter of record. However, it is submitted that on receipt of complete case the proposal was sent to the Government for its approval and same was rejected by the Finance Department.” In the above background, the respondents have prayed for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. However, it is submitted that on receipt of complete case the proposal was sent to the Government for its approval and same was rejected by the Finance Department.” In the above background, the respondents have prayed for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. In rebuttal, petitioner has filed a rejoinder -affidavit dated 25.08.2024: (i) In the Rejoinder, petitioner has specifically stated that initially the respondents have delayed the consideration and then re-consideration in an unreasonable manner. It is stated that though the State Administrative Tribunal had passed an order in present matter i.e. OA (M) No 132 of 2019 [which stands renumbered as CWPOA] on 09.04.2019 directing the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on analogy of benefits given to other-dependents vide Office Order dated 12.08.2015 [Annexure A-7]. Rejoinder further refers to another order dated 11.06.2019 passed by State Administrative Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the matter and since the respondents did not comply with the directions passed by the Administrative Tribunal therefore, petitioner submitted a legal notice on 04.06.2022 [Annexure A-8] against the inaction of the State Authorities, with the prayer to comply with the orders/directions by considering her case for employment which has been illegally turned down by the Finance department in a cryptic and non-speaking order, so as deprive her of her right of consideration for employment on compassionate grounds in terms of the policy and moreover, when, in a similar fact-situation, the Respondents have granted the benefit of compassionate appointment to another dependent but was denied to petitioner by sleeping over her claim, which was unreasonable, discriminatory and was not sustainable. (ii) In Para 6(vi) of the rejoinder, the petitioner specifically averred that the petitioner could not have been singled out, isolated, treated un-equally and made to suffer hostile discrimination, when, in similar fact-situation, the benefit of compassionate appointment as Clerk on daily wage basis has been granted to another dependent, namely Ms Bhawana within a short period of one year after applying for the job whereas the case of petitioner was rejected on whimsical grounds just to defeat the object of kith and kin policy and to deny the benefits accruing therefrom. The stand taken in rejoinder reads as under:- “2. The stand taken in rejoinder reads as under:- “2. That the averments made under the corresponding para of the petition are not correct since the interim direction dated 9th April, 2019 & 11.06.2019 respectively passed by the erstwhile Ld. HPSAT was not complied with the contents of both the orders reads as under: 09-04-2019 Heard, Notice. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Learned Deputy General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Replies within six weeks. List on 11.06.2019. There will be a direction to the respondents, in the interim to consider the case of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment on the analogy of office order, Annexure A-7. Copy dasti. 11.06.2019 Replies within six weeks. The respondents, in the meanwhile, are directed to comply with order dated 09.04.2019. Copy dasti. List on 06.08.2019. Further more both the above judicial/legal and valid order/direction have not been complied with and these were only complied with after serving legal notice dated 4th June, 2022 that too on 23.03.2023 copy of the notice dated 04.06.2019 is placed on record for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court as per Annexure A-8, which prove the factum of deliberate and intentional delay in implementing the Hon’ble Court order/direction supra. Further rest of the averments made under the corresponding preliminary para is wrong as such denied emphatically.” In above backdrop, petitioner has reiterated her claim made in the writ petition after denying the averments contained in the reply and accordingly prayed for compassionate appointment from the date it was extended to another similar dependent on 12.08.2015 [Annexure P-5]. SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT BY STATE AUTHORITIES: 5. Instant matter was listed on 04.12.2024, when, this Court directed the respondents to file Supplementary Affidavit, which was filed as per Affidavit dated 23.12.2024, by State Project Director, Samagara Shiksha/ISSE Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:- “2. That it is submitted that vide 37th Meeting of executive the cases of Smt. Bhawna and the petitioner were not considered for appointment on compassionate ground, rather general decision was taken to appoint the dependent of the deceased employee of the society on compassionate ground on daily wage basis, as prior to this date there was no provision for appointing the person on compassionate ground under the society. 3. That Ms. 3. That Ms. Bhawna whose husband died during service on 15.12.2013 applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the month of August, 2014 and thereafter she was offered appointment on compassionate ground in the month of August, 2015. It is further submitted that the husband of petitioner died on 21.06.215 and complete case in respect of petitioner was received in the office of the deponent in the month of September, 2016. Hence, the case of the petitioner was examined separately not with the case of Smt. Bhawana. 4. That thereafter the case was sent to the Finance Department and after examining the case, the Finance Department rejected the same with the following observation:- “Examined F.D. regrets its inability to concur in the A.D.’s proposed as the instant case doesn’t cover under the existing policy of the Govt. in DOP framed for providing compassionate employment.” STATEMENT MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: 6. During the course of hearing today, Learned Counsel submits that since the rejection of her case on 29.10.2016, which was reiterated on 10.7.2018 [Annexure A-1] was ex-facie untenable therefore, the respondents may be mandated to re-consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the Scheme/Policy which was in force on the date her husband died and she applied for the job of Clerk on daily wage basis, for which, even the State Administrative Tribunal, passed an order on 9.4.2019, which was reiterated on 11.06.2019 by directing Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointmenton analogy of another dependent-Ms Bhawana on 12.8.2015 {Annexure A-7}, even though notionally therefore, in such an eventuality, the petitioner shall not claim any monetary benefits either as daily wager and even after conferment of work-charge/regularization etc. till date. [Statement taken on record]. 7. Heard, Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the case records. ANALYSIS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that the rejection orders dated 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1] does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny for the following reasons:- REJECTION ORDERS UNSUSTAINABLE: (i) It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner, Shalika Sharma, namely Late Shri Parmesh Kumar died during the course of employment on 21.06.2015. After his death, the petitioner [Shalika Sharma], being eligible applied for job on compassionate grounds in the month of September, 2016, which was to be considered in terms of the decision taken vide Item No. 16 in 37th Executive Committee Meeting of State Mission Authority of SSA and RMSA on 12.08.2013 [Annexure A-2], by considering the cases of the dependents for employment only on daily wages, against available vacant post(s) of Clerks or Peons or Chowkidars at District or Block Level, but the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Finance Department on 29.10.2016, which was reiterated on 10.07.2018 by simply stating that the Finance department did not concur in the proposal, as the instant case does not fall under the existing Policy of the Government.This plea set up by Respondents does not stand to logic and rationale, for the reason, that firstly, the rejection was by a non-speaking order ; and secondly, the rejection order was bad when, the case of petitioner was to be considered in terms of the decision taken by Executive Council of Respondents-Society on 12.8.2013, Annexure A-2 to grant employment on compassionate grounds to dependents against vacant posts of Clerk or Peons or Chowkidars on daily wage basis; and thirdly, denial of concurrence by the Finance department does not spell out as to under which provision and on what basis/grounds, the petitioner was not covered under the Policy for being considered for compassionate appointment, and lastly, in a similar fact-situation once the Respondents have granted appointment as Clerk on daily wage basis to another dependent, Ms. Bhawana within a period of one year from the date she applied for the job whereas, similar treatment was not extended to the petitioner despite being eligible for the post of Clerk and once it is not the stand of the Respondents that the petitioner was ineligibility or vacancy was not available at the time of passing of rejection orders in terms of the scheme/policy under which, another similarly placed incumbent Ms. Bhawana was considered and appointed. In these circumstances, the rejection orders passed by ignoring relevant considerations and that too in a perverse and cryptic manner suffers from malice in law ; and therefore, the rejection order(s) are interdicted by this Court and are accordingly quashed and set-aside. Bhawana was considered and appointed. In these circumstances, the rejection orders passed by ignoring relevant considerations and that too in a perverse and cryptic manner suffers from malice in law ; and therefore, the rejection order(s) are interdicted by this Court and are accordingly quashed and set-aside. DECISION MAKING PROCESS VITIATED DUE TO DISCRIMINATORY- VARIABLE YARDSTICKS: (ii) Material on record ex-facie reveals that while considering the cases of dependents of the deceased employee(s) for compassionate employment, the Respondents have adopted a pick and choose method, which is clear from the fact that in case of another dependent, namely Ms. Bhawana, whose husband namely, Shri Rakesh Chauhan died on 15.12.2013 and she applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in August 2014 and was offered the job of Clerk on daily wage basis on 22.08.2015 [Annexure A-7] whereas, on the other hand, in case of petitioner, Shalika Sharma, though her husband Late Shri Parmesh died on 21.6.2015 and she applied for job in September, 2016 and the Finance department did not give concurrence for her appointment on 29.10.2016, which was reiterated on 10.7.2018 {Annexure P-1}, by a non-speaking order and without disclosing the grounds/reasons as to why and under which provision her case was not covered under existing kith and kin policy. This action was assailed in instant petition [OA No. 132 of 2019, before the State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of Tribunal, the matter was renumbered as CWPOA No. 7471 of 2020 and despite directions passed by State Administrative Tribunal on 9.4.2019 and then on 11.06.2019 and despite issuance of legal notice on 4.6.2021 but nothing was done by the Respondents. Even a perusal of Supplementary Affidavit goes on to suggest that on the directions of Secretary (Education), the Executive Council took a decision on 12.10.2021, to apply the latest instructions and even thereafter the matter was delayed for about one year and two months till the petitioner was made to undergo typing test on 28.12.2022 and thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment as a Clerk on daily wage basis on 03.03.2023 [Annexure A-7], after about 7 years of having submitted her initial claim and about 4 years from the date of passing of the orders by Administrative Tribunal in April 2019 which were ignored.Perusal of above facts reveal that the Respondents have applied two different yardsticks, without there being a fixed duration or time- line within which the claim of dependant(s) is to be considered and final decision is taken in the light of parameters enshrined in applicable Policy/Scheme. An obligation vested in the State Authorities to consider the claim for compassionate appointment is not a mere formality. Consideration of claim for employment on compassionate grounds has to be effective and by taking it to the logical end within a reasonable time, failing which, malice in law/fact is inferable. In addition, even a defective consideration, which either takes into account alien factors or which ignores germane/relevant factors i.e. eligibility, availability of post or the action of the State Authorities which negates the claim in a casual and cryptic manner ignoring the Policy /Scheme vitiates the decision-making process. Once the decision-making process ignored the relevant considerations or took into account non-germane- extraneous considerations therefore, the decision- making process and rejection orders based thereon, being perverse cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Inaction and slackness speak volumes of apathy by the State towards a dependent, who due to indigency and distress had applied for solace so as to eak out a livelihood for herself and the dependant family. The State Authorities cannot be permitted to adopt a pick and choose method or apply different yardsticks and different time durations and time-lines, while exercising its discretion and considering the cases of dependants for compassionate appointment i.e. the petitioner vis-à-vis similarly placed dependant (Ms. Bhawana) is an abuse of discretion, leading to treating equals as unequal, which cannot sustain in view of the Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16. Bhawana) is an abuse of discretion, leading to treating equals as unequal, which cannot sustain in view of the Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16. DENYING CONSIDERATION AS PER EXTANT POLICY AND DELAYING FINAL DECISION FOR YEARS DEPRECATED: (iii) While dealing with similar fact-situation where an application for compassionate appointment was kept pending for years together under the applicable scheme, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated this practice, in Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL & Ors. vs. Vidya Prasad, (2021) 13 SCC 212 , in the following terms:- “3. It is not disputed by the appellants that in terms of the Scheme of 1998, the respondent was eligible in seeking compassionate appointment. The new Scheme (weightage point system Scheme) in supersession of the 1998 Scheme was introduced by the appellants on 27.06.2007 and immediately thereafter the candidature of the respondent was considered by the Committee constituted seeking compassionate appointment and after consideration the application was rejected pursuant to a communication dated 15.09.2007 and the reason for rejection of his application is referred as under: Late Shri Ram Bux Ex.P/M TDM Etawah, expired on 07.02.2003 at the age of about 52 years and Eight month survived by his wife and two son including Shri Vidhya Prasad Widow Smt. Badala Devi is getting pension of Rs.3170/- per month and living in own house. 7. In the given case, either on the death of his father or on the date on which he submitted his application for compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue for seeking compassionate appointment, and as observed he was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application remained pending until the new Scheme was introduced on 27.06.2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated 15.09.2007. 8. The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the application for fair consideration in seeking employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants and for the afore-stated reason, he has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. The indigent family who has lost their bread winner in seeking compassionate appointment to which one of the dependent was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and red tapism which is prevalent in the office of the appellants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 that the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged in the relevant Policy and the Rules have to be achieved so as to enable the dependent family members who had been left in lurch and in financial difficulty to have succor at the earliest by mandating that an application for compassionate employment has to be considered at the earliest point of time within a period of six months after due completion, so as to bring the State Action in tune with mandate of fairness and reasonableness. Delay was held to frustrate the object of the policy and application should be taken expeditiously by not keeping it pending for years together, in the following terms: 16. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. 17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. 17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. 18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved. In instant case, notably, the respondents took a conscious decision in its 37th Executive Committee Meeting on 12.08.2013 [Annexure A-2] for considering the dependants of deceased employees for appointment on compassionate grounds against vacant posts of Clerk on daily wages. Based on this decision, consideration was to be undertaken by the State Authorities in terms of the extant policy, at the relevant time. Based on this decision, consideration was to be undertaken by the State Authorities in terms of the extant policy, at the relevant time. Once compassionate appointment was admissible then, State Authorities were under an obligation to consider the claims of all dependants in a fair, just, reasonable, non- discriminatory and non-arbitrary manner so as to obviate any inference of improper or unfettered discretion. Justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. Reasonableness, parity in treatment is the hall-mark of equality. Narration of facts, on record, establish that the State Authorities have given a complete go-bye to the principles of reasonableness and parity in treatment by considering the cases of dependant(s) for compassionate appointment, though within the ambit of extant policy in vogue at the relevant time, in view of the fact that another dependant Ms. Narration of facts, on record, establish that the State Authorities have given a complete go-bye to the principles of reasonableness and parity in treatment by considering the cases of dependant(s) for compassionate appointment, though within the ambit of extant policy in vogue at the relevant time, in view of the fact that another dependant Ms. Bhawna was given appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of two years of the death of her late husband and within one year from the date she applied for job whereas, on the other hand, the case of the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily rejected {as discussed in Para 8 (i) of this judgement supra} and secondly, despite the passing of the orders by State Administrative on 9.4.2019 and 11.6.2019 to consider the case of the petitioner on analogy of another dependant Ms Bhawana nothing was done and thirdly, instead of considering the case of petitioner on the basis of the policy applicable on the date of death and even on the date of submitting the claim- application for appointment, the Respondents have examined the case of the petitioner by applying latest instructions-revised policy {which came to be issued indisputably on 7.3.2019} illegally; and fourthly, after setting aside of rejection orders dated 29.10.2016, received under RTI on 10.7.2018 {Annexure A-1), the logical consequence is to direct the Respondents to reconsider the claim in terms of policy, which was applicable, on date of death of husband or date of submitting application or date of passing of rejection orders [whichever is beneficial] so as to ensure a level playing field to all dependants, who were governed under the policy in force prior to the issuance of revised/latest policy on 7.3.2019 ; and fifthly, even denial of an effective and meaningful consideration in the teeth of extant-applicable policy by prolonging the consideration of the case of petitioner for 7 years {i.e. from the date of submitting claim} and for about 4 years {i.e. from the date of passing of orders by Learned Tribunal vis-à-vis another dependant, Ms. Bhawana} was ignored; and lastly, once the rejection orders or the Reply Affidavit and the Supplementary Affidavit does not spells out that the petitioner was ineligible/unfit or the post of Clerk was not available ; therefore, the action of Respondents-State Authorities in delaying the consideration of the case of the petitioner has resulted in unequal and unfair treatment to the petitioner vis-a vis similarly placed dependant is good enough to infer legal malice against the Respondents, in facts of this case, with intent to delay the logical consideration and to deprive the petitioner of the rightful claim and the accruing fruits thereof. In these circumstances, the action of the Respondents cannot be permitted to operate the same, which is accordingly interdicted and is set-aside. INITIAL DEFECTIVE CONSIDERATION {A-1} AND DELAYED CONSIDERATION THEREAFTER-NEED FOR BALANCING OF RIGHTS : (iv) Needless to say, the Respondents kept the petitioner waiting for last 7 years for an effective and meaningful consideration in terms of extant policy but her case was initially rejected and even thereafter despite orders of State Administrative Tribunal her matter was again kept pending for about 4 years whereas in the case of another similarly placed incumbent(s) Ms Bhawana, her case was considered and was given the resultant appointment as Clerk on daily wages within a period of two years of the date of death of her late husband and within one year from the date she applied for job and this arbitrary exercise of discretion, and that too by applying a pick and choose method and by not following a reasonable duration and timeline while considering cases of dependants for compassionate employment reveals ex-facie unfairness, unreasonable, arbitrariness and suffers from malice in law, tending to defeat the object and spirit behind effective and meaningful consideration and subject to such consideration, to take steps for offering the resultant appointment expeditiously or within a reasonable time so as to achieve the object of the policy of compassionate employment and to give respite to the indigent family. In order to curb the unwarranted practice of prolonging consideration or in keeping claims /cases pending indefinitely or for years together the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Shetty (supra) has outlined that the State Authorities-Respondents are bound to consider the claim for compassionate appointment in terms of extant policy-scheme by taking a final decision within a period of 6 months, from the date of receipt of such application complete in all respects which has been blatantly ignored in instant case. Thus, in order to safeguard the rights of petitioner and to ensure parity in treatment to the petitioner so as to avoid the charge of discrimination and unreasonableness and to obviate the malice which had originated due to indefinite or variable timeline- duration while considering cases of dependant(s) for compassionate appointment; this Courts is of the considered view, that it would be in fitness of fact-situation, equity and good conscious to balance the rights and interests of petitioner vis-à-vis the claim made and benefits extended to another dependant {Ms. Bhawana, as discussed above}, by directing the State Authorities-Respondents to re- consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment as Clerk on daily wage basis, in terms of the scheme/policy which was applicable at time of death of her husband or date of applying for the post or date of illegal rejection{whichever is beneficial} and upon consideration, if petitioner is found fit and the post exists, then, to grant benefit of notional seniority to the petitioner as Clerk on daily wage basis at-least w.e.f 9.4.2019 [i.e.date of passing of orders/directions by Tribunal either by ante-dating the appointment orders dated 3.3.2023 to 9.4.2019 [date of passing of orders /directions by Court/Tribunal], so as to avoid the charge of discrimination and to extend similar treatment to the petitioner on analogy of similarly placed incumbent Ms. Bhawana, though expeditiously, within a period of 2 years whereas, this benefit was prolonged for last 7 years in case of the petitioner. However, it is clarified that in the event of grant of ante-dated appointment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary/financial benefits either as daily wager and thereafter upon conferment of work charge status/regularization in terms of applicable policies till the date of passing of this judgement by this Court today. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 9. However, it is clarified that in the event of grant of ante-dated appointment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary/financial benefits either as daily wager and thereafter upon conferment of work charge status/regularization in terms of applicable policies till the date of passing of this judgement by this Court today. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Impugned rejection order dated 10.07.2018 [Annexure A-1] is quashed and set-aside; (ii) Flowing from direction no (i) above, State Authorities- Respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk on daily wage basis; in terms of Policy/Scheme in force i.e. on date of death of husband or date she applied or date passing of illegal rejection orders [whichever is beneficial] ; (iii) Upon re-consideration, the Respondents are mandated to extend the benefit of appointment to the petitioner as Clerk on daily wage basis w.e.f 09.04.2019 ; but without disturbing the appointment orders dated 3.3.2023 as Clerk on daily wage basis; (iv). Consequent upon directions in (i) to (iii) above, the Respondents are directed to consider and grant work charge status/ regularization in terms of the applicable policies to the petitioner ; but without any financial /monetary benefits till the date of passing of this judgement; (v) Needless to say that actual benefits in terms of this judgment shall accrue prospectively i.e. date of passing of this judgement and thereafter; (vi) Parties to bear respective costs. 10. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.