Rajendra Dahyabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3766 Guj

          C/SCA/370/2013                                        JUDGMENT



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 370 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                           RAJENDRA DAHYABHAI SOLANKI
                                      Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                                  Date : 04/03/2021
                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 7/9.11.2012 passed by the Assistant Director i.e. respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no.3') whereby, the application of the petitioner seeking lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. Tersely stated are the facts:

2.1    The mother of the petitioner Jashiben B. Solanki was serving






          C/SCA/370/2013                                                JUDGMENT

as Class-IV employee with General Hospital, ESI Scheme, Gotri Road, Vadodara since 29.7.1982 and she passed away on 12.4.2011. Upon demise of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.5.2011 for grant of compassionate appointment, as the petitioner was wholly dependent upon his mother and she was the sole earning member.

2.2 The application dated 12.5.2011 of the petitioner, after travelling inter-departmentally and intra-departmentally, came to be returned vide letter dated 9.8.2011 with instructions to be processed in terms of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17940 of 2011 before this Court challenging the communication dated 9.8.2011 as well as praying for quashing and setting aside of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide oral judgment dated 16.3.2012 with a clarification that the application of the petitioner be examined and if it is found to be in order, complying with all the requirements, a decision be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. So far as the challenge to the validity of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 is concerned, the same was not accepted.

2.3 In the interregnum, it appears that an application dated nil was submitted by the petitioner to the Director ESI scheme with a request to provide lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, if the petitioner is not given compassionate appointment. In the said application, there is a reference to a communication dated 7.10.2011 whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been filed.

2.4     Apropos the oral judgment dated 16.3.2012 and more






         C/SCA/370/2013                                            JUDGMENT

particularly, clarification contained in the penultimate paragraph, the application of the petitioner came to be considered by the respondents and ultimately, vide letter dated 7/9.11.2012, it came to be rejected on the grounds, namely, that the father of the petitioner is not alive; the family pension has not been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner; and the petitioner is married. Consequently, it is observed that the conditions enumerated in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 are not fulfilled, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for lump sum compensation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

3. Upon issuance of the notice, the respondent no. 3 has filed his reply. The averment made by the petitioner that application was rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of No objection certificate by the brother, is denied. It is emphatically stated that the application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to claim lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. While further elaborating, it is stated that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was married and was not eligible to claim family pension as per clause (ii) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules'), read with condition no. 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. That the petitioner was not eligible and entitled for the lump sum compensation inasmuch as, the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is bereft of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

4. The petitioner in response to the reply, has filed his rejoinder,

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

inter alia, stating that it is for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply that the stand has been taken by the authorities, rejecting the application on the basis of Rule 91 (1) of the Pension Rules; however, the said stand is not reflected in the impugned order dated 7/9.11.2012. Therefore, it is not permissible to the respondent no.3 to expand the scope of the impugned order by way of an affidavit. It is also averred that if the stand taken by the respondent authorities, in the order dated 7/9.11.2012, is accepted, the petitioner would be losing on both the counts inasmuch as, the petitioner has already been deprived of the compassionate appointment in view of the scheme having been abolished and also lump sum compensation as envisaged in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. That the said act on the part of the authorities would tantamount to deprive the petitioner of the legitimate dues of his mother, on whom he was wholly dependent. The petitioner is entitled for the legitimate dues of the government employee, who has rendered almost 29 years of service and it would be impermissible for the respondent authorities to reject the application on such frivolous grounds. It is, therefore, urged that considering the peculiar facts of the case, the petition deserves to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of lump sum compensation to the petitioner.

5. Mr.Dipan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the challenge of the petitioner was two fold, namely, the validity of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 as well as the communication dated 9.8.2011 whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, was returned. Mr.Desai fairly conceded that so far as the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 is concerned, the validity having been upheld by this Hon'ble Court vide oral judgment dated 16.3.2012, the issue is to be

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

decided on the anvil of the conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and that the petitioner cannot advance any arguments on the validity of the said Government Resolution.

5.1 However, it is submitted that at the time of the death of mother of the petitioner, what was required to be seen was as to whether the petitioner was dependent on the employee and not the subsequent developments which have taken place. It is submitted that as provided in clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, the son if crosses the age of 25 years and/or gets married, the son would not be eligible and entitled for the pension; however, this consideration should not be the ground for rejecting the compensation. It was impermissible for the authorities to have pressed in service Rule 91 of the Pension Rules for refusing the request for grant of lump sum compensation. Quite apart, a bare perusal of sub-rule (4) of Rule 91 suggests that where a deceased government employee or pensioner leaves behind more than one child, the eldest eligible child shall be entitled to the family pension for the period mentioned in clause (ii) and after the expiry of that period, the next child becomes eligible for the grant of family pension and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for the family pension. It is submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled.

5.2 It is next contended that as can be discern out from the record, when the petitioner has submitted his first application, the same was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner may apply under the subsequent scheme introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and when the petitioner applied, it was rejected on the ground that as per condition no.3(3) of the Government Resolution, the petitioner is not entitled. It is submitted that the petitioner has lost on all the counts,

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

namely, (i) the application for compassionate appointment was not accepted on the ground that the scheme for compassionate appointment has been discontinued; (ii) the petitioner has not been accorded the family pension as per the rules; and (iii) the lump sum compensation has been refused on the ground that the petitioner is married, and no family pension having been sanctioned the petitioner is not entitled. Therefore, refusing any benefit to the petitioner, would not be in furtherance of the scheme but frustrating the provisions of such benevolent scheme. It is thus urged that the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the application is against the spirit of the policy, and therefore, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, taking a sympathetic view the petitioner deserves to be granted lump sum compensation.

5.3 It is submitted that one of the grounds for rejecting the application is not germane to the conditions contained in the policy. The reason that the petitioner was not entitled to claim family pension and therefore is not entitled for grant of lump sum compensation is fallacious inasmuch as, the petitioner was wholly dependent upon his mother and was not earning anything at the time of the death of his mother and therefore was very much entitled for the compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is impermissible to the authorities to have linked the aspect of family pension or entitlement of the petitioner for family pension, for determining his eligibility to receive compensation under the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011.

5.4 It is next contended that when the earlier policy of compassionate appointment, was considered, the Apex Court as well as this Court has unequivocally held that the income received through family pension should not be considered for the purpose of determining the income of the dependent or the member of the deceased family. As an extension to the aforesaid submission,

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Canara Bank & Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 to contend that the Apex Court, has referred to the judgment in the case of Balbir Kaur & Another vs. Steel Authority of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. It is, therefore, submitted that the stand taken by the respondent authorities in rejecting the application on the ground that no family pension has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, such a stand is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.5 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Divyeshkumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 238393 to contend that the view enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) has been followed by this Court as well. While referring to paragraph 13, it is submitted that this Court while allowing the writ petition and applying the principle laid down in the case of Canara Bank (supra) has observed that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied to the legal heir of the deceased employee whose family has received terminal benefits and is also getting family pension.

5.6 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Pathan Salmankhan Rasulkhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 239399. While inviting the attention to paragraph 6, it is submitted that this Court while again following the principle laid down in the case of Canara Bank (supra) has allowed the writ petition. Consistent view has been taken by the Apex Court as well as this Court in relation to the erstwhile scheme that the receipt of the family pension by the member of the deceased employee, cannot be a ground to refuse the compassionate appointment

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

conversely, in the scheme for the lump sum compensation, the same cannot be a ground for refusing the lump sum compensation.

5.7 It is next submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment or the scheme for lump sum compensation in lieu of the compassionate appointment are benevolent schemes introduced for the benefit of the family members of the deceased employees, died in harness. Hence, the same has to be implemented and interpreted in the manner beneficial to the employee and not frustrating the object of the scheme. It is submitted that if the stand taken by the authorities, is accepted, the same would not be in furtherance but would defeat the objective behind the policy, rendering it nullity. Under the circumstances, it is urged that the order dated 7/9.11.2012 passed by the authorities deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be extended the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 in view of the mother of the petitioner having served with the authorities for more than 29 years.

6. Per contra, Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while vehemently opposing the writ petition, submitted that the mother of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee and since she died in harness, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. Mr.Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the application of the petitioner for grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment was received prior to the oral judgment dated 16.3.2012 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.17940 of 2011; however, the respondent No.3 did not receive the no objection letter of the brother of the petitioner and accordingly, the application of the petitioner was rejected as the petitioner was not found eligible to claim lump sum compensation

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

as per the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011.

6.1 While inviting the attention of this Court to the communication dated 5.9.2011, it is submitted that the respondent No.3 has provided all the informations to the Director, office of the Medical Services i.e. respondent No.4, and upon consideration of all the papers, so also, the conditions enumerated in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, that the order dated 7/9.11.2012, came to be passed rejecting the application of the petitioner. Clearly, sub- rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, provides for family pension to whom it is to be paid. Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules further provides that in case of a son, until he attains the age of 25 years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was considered, keeping in mind the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, and therefore, as is discernible from the record, the petitioner though was 24 years at the time of making the application, was married. To support such contention, reliance is placed on the extract of the application (page 57) annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, wherein the details of the heirs of the deceased employee have been furnished. While referring to the said statement, it is submitted that the details, indicate that the petitioner is married, therefore, in view of the provisions of clause

(ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, the petitioner stands disentitled for claiming any benefit for the lump sum compensation.

6.2 Reliance is placed on the recent judgment in the case of N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, rendered by the larger bench. The Apex Court, has held that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration for claim of compassionate

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

appointment. It is further held that a dependent of the government employee, in absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application; however, he/she is disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable on the day of death of the government employee. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the date of the application, the petitioner would be governed by the policy as laid down in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. Also, petitioner does not fulfill the condition no.3(3) which disentitles him for grant of lump sum compensation. Thus, it is urged that, the decision dated 7/9.11.2012 of the authorities does not warrant interference.

7. Heard Mr.Dipan Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

8. Perceptibly, the petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No.17940 of 2011, had challenged the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government. This Court while not accepting the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, has in paragraph 4.1 held that to provide appointment on compassionate ground is purely a matter of policy and the Court would be loath to interfere with the right of the State Government to frame and declare a policy. It has been further observed that right to take a decision or to pronounce a policy or not to provide any policy and the types of benefits to be provided so also the eligibility criteria would be within the domain of the government and the Court would not direct the government to formulate a particular policy or discontinue the policy. The relevant extract of paragraph 4.1 is reproduced as under:

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

"4.1 So far as the petitioner's challenge against the GR dated 5.7.2011 is concerned, it is settled position that appointment on compassionate ground is not matter of right and that therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the GR dated 5..2011 cannot be sustained since the said GR, which is in nature of policy of the respondent Government, does not affect and/or abridge or violate, in any manner, any right of the petitioner.

Besides this, whether to provide for appointment on compassionate ground or not, is purely a matter of policy and Court would be loath to interfere with the respondent Government's right to frame and declare a policy or to not make and pronounce any policy making provision for appointment on compassionate ground.

The right to take decision to pronounce a policy or not or to provide/announce any policy or what type of benefit may be provided for and what should be the eligibility criteria is within the domain and province of Government and the Court would not direct the respondent Government to make and declare a particular policy or to not to discontinue a policy if it is found appropriate by the respondent Government to discontinue particular policy. What should be the contents of the policy are within discretion and realm of the Government with which the Court would not be justified in interfering.

In present case, the Government has come out with particular policy which extends benefits as considered appropriate by the State Government.

The policy announce vide GR dated 5.7.2011 is brought in force by discontinuing/substituting the erstwhile policy. The decision to discontinue the erstwhile policy and to substitute it by another policy, is matter of policy decision and is within the domain and province of the respondent Government and the Court would not be justified in interfering with the said policy decision and/or in directing the Government to not to introduce new policy and/or discontinue the erstwhile policy or to substitute the erstwhile policy with new policy.

Besides this, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not establish any grounds to demonstrate that the policy is, in any manner, discriminatory."

9. Therefore, so far as the policy framed vide Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 is concerned, the same has been upheld, and therefore, the issue raised in the present writ petition, is to be decided in accordance with the conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011.

10. Moreover, this court clarified that the petitioner will make an application indicating therein that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the benefit flowing from and available under the

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 as well as submit written no objection from his brother declaring that if the benefit flowing from the scheme is extended to and made available to the petitioner then he has no objection. The court further clarified that the first authority, may after examining the petitioner's application , if it is found to be in order and complying with all the requirements, take necessary steps to ensure that appropriate decision thereon is taken in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the government resolution dated 5.7.2011.

11. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition the Superintendent, ESI scheme vide communication dated 7.10.2011 took a decision to file the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment which aspect is not forming part of the pleadings by either of the parties. It further appears that the petitioner again submitted an application dated nil, inter alia, requesting that if the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment, then in that case, the case of the petitioner for lump sum compensation in lieu of the compassionate appointment may be considered. Pertinently, it is not clear as to whether the application dated nil was submitted by the petitioner on what date. Though at one place in the application the date mentioned is "16.8.2011" , however, in the body of the letter there is a reference of a communication dated 7.10.2011 of Suprietendent as well as at the end of the letter , therefore , it is presumed that the application cannot be of the date prior to the date of 7.10.2011. Further , as the record reveals vide communication dated 7.10.2011 the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was already filed and the same does not appear to have been challenged. Also there is lack of clarity as to whether on the date of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, the application of the petitioner was pending consideration or was rejected. Be that as it may.

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

12. Nonetheless, treating the said application dated nil a request for grant of lump sum compensation, notably, this court vide order dated 16.3.2012 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that after examining the application of the petitioner and if the same is found to be in order and complying with all the requirements, take necessary steps to ensure that appropriate decision is taken in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the government resolution dated 5.7.2011. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was to be considered in line with the conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011. Central to the issue of grant of lump sum compensation as per the government resolution dated 5.7.2011 is condition no. 3(3). Consideration of the case of the petitioner revolves around the said condition no.3(3), free english translation and gist whereof read thus:

"the legally wedded wife or husband or son or unmarried daughter, who at the time of the death of the concerned employee, is wholly dependent and who is entitled for the family pension or who has been sanctioned the pension, only those persons shall be entitled for the lump sum compensation."

13. The said clause provides for the eligibility and entitlement of the member of a deceased employee, died in harness. The said clause contains, inter alia, three aspects, namely, that (i) the wife, son, unmarried daughter as the case may be should be wholly dependent; (ii) in whose name the pension can be sanctioned; or (iii) pension has been sanctioned; only that person would be paid the lump sum compensation. Therefore, condition no.3(3) has some relevance with the aspect of family pension and when the issue crops up about the eligibility and entitlement of the member of the

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

government employee to receive family pension or pension, one needs to fall back upon the statutory rules governing the pension. Therefore, contention raised by the petitioner that while substantiating the order under challenge, clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 could not have been pressed in service, is misplaced and does not merit acceptance. Clearly, condition refers to eligibility and entitlement of the family pension to the family members of the employee, died in harness, and therefore, condition no.3(3) has to be read, taking recourse of the Pension Rules, 2002.

14. Chapter X of the Pension Rules titled "Family Pension Scheme, 1972" deals with the extension of family pension to the government employee and/or to the members of the government employees. Rule 91 of the Pension Rules provides for family pension to whom payable, whereas, sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 contemplates the period for which family pension is payable. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 reads thus:-

"91. Family Pension to whom payable :(1) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows :-

(i)In the case of a widow or widower, until the date of death or remarriage,whichever is earlier;

(ii)in the case of son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier; and

(iii)in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier;"

15. Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 provides that in the case of son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier, till that period will be paid pension. Therefore clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, specifically stipulates that if the family pension is to be payable to the son, the same would be till he attains the age of 25 years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the right to

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

receive pension by son is limited to, either of two eventualities viz., until he attains the age of 25 years or he gets married, whichever is earlier.

16. The petitioner, in the present case and has not been disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, was aged 24 years and was married. The said aspect is further strengthened by the extract which has been produced along with the affidavit-in-reply, indicating the factum of the petitioner being married. Therefore, condition no.3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 read in juxtaposition with clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Pension Rules suggests that the petitioner would not be entitled for lump sum compensation, as he was married and resultantly, excludes him from receiving the pension, and resultantly, the compensation.

17. Besides, in the judgment in the case of N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Apex Court, while considering numerous judgments, has held that norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration for claim of compassionate appointment and a dependent of the government employee, in absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. Relevant paragraph 19 of the said judgment reads thus:

"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee."

As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the application of the petitioner was to be considered in light of the policy, which

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

was prevailing.

18. The learned advocate for the petitioner, had tried to draw an analogy on the basis of the earlier policy; however, the same cannot be accepted firstly, acceptance of such contention would amount to rewriting the policy, which would be impermissible and secondly, the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 has been rejected and therefore, the issue is to be decided on the basis of the conditions contained in the policy, as it stands.

19. While adverting to the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner, namely, (i) Canara Bank & Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra); Divyeshkumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and Pathan Salmankhan Rasulkhan vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it is required to be noted that the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the present case is concerned, the issue pertains to the grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of the compassionate appointment, which would be governed by the policy dated 5.7.2011.

20. The contention raised by the petitioner that albeit the mother of the petitioner has worked for almost 29 years, the family members have been deprived of the benefits, is appealing; however, one cannot lose sight of the fact that benefits would enure in accordance with the policies and not on sympathies. A change in policy has put the petitioner in disadvantageous position, but the fact remains that the benefits to the family members or the employee concerned are always subject to the fulfillment of the requirements contained in applicable rules, regulations and policies, at the relevant point of time.

21. As per the principle laid down by the Apex court, the application of the petitioner was to be considered in light of the policy and norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the

C/SCA/370/2013 JUDGMENT

application and as discussed herein above, the petitioner is not eligible and entitled for the lump sum compensation in tune with the conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and more particularly condition no.3(3) thereof. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no error has been committed by the respondent no. 3 in passing the order dated 7/9.11.2012, rejecting the application of the petitioner on the grounds that the father of the petitioner is not alive and the family pension has not been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and that he is married. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed without grant of any relief and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL