As per case facts, the petitioner's father suffered 100% disability in a work-related accident and retired early under an assurance that his son would be considered for compassionate appointment. However, ... the petitioner's claim was rejected years later, citing a new policy that did not exist at the time of the incident and lacked provisions for such cases, despite the applicability of older policies at the relevant time. The family's subsequent representations were also rejected. The question arose whether the policy applicable at the time of the disability/retirement or the policy prevalent at the time of the application's consideration should govern compassionate appointment cases. Finally, the High Court held that the policy in force at the time of the incident is applicable, condemning the administrative apathy and hyper-technical approach that caused significant delay and distress to the family. The court condoned the delay in filing the Writ Petition and directed the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner for the denial of livelihood and mental harassment.