( 1. ) THIS petition is filed challenging the order dated 27-1-2006 annexure P/10 passed by the respondent Board - denying compassionate appointment on the basis of the circular dated 30-1-1997 and 1-9-2000 and for the reasons narrated in the order impugned.

( 2. ) IT is the case of petitioner, that his father Kaniram Baria was in the employment of respondent Board, as Line Attendant Grade II, and died on 13-9-1999 during the course of employment. It is further his case that he is the eldest member of the family having six brothers, sisters and widow, however, being a member of the S. T. category and having passed the 8th class examination, an application to grant of compassionate appointment was submitted by him on 19-9-1999. The said application was not considered by the Board, however, a writ petition bearing No. 2922/2005 (8) filed, which was and disposed of vide order dated 14-9-2005, with a direction, to decide the application. Thereafter respondent Board has rejected the said application vide order Annexure P/10 dated 27-1-2006, relying the subsequent policy dated 1-9-2000; whereby, the grant of compassionate appointments are estopped due to difficult financial position of Board; and because the family of the deceased received Rs. 15,000/-of Ex-gratia, Rs. 77,000/- of GIS, Rs. 1,50,766/- of gratuity and Rs. 57,668/-towards GPV. The Board has also directed to pay annuity Rs. 350/- per month in addition to family pension. Such an action of the Board and the order impugned is under challenge in this petition.

( 3. ) LEARNED counsel, Shri Patne, submits that the application for grant of compassionate appointment ought to have been considered in the light of the circular of the Board dated 30-1-1997 because on the date of submission of the application i. e. 19-9-1999 the said policy was in existence and prevalent, however, denial of compassionate appointment in view of the subsequent policy dated 1-9-2000 is against the settled position of law. To butress his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of abhishek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2007 (2) Supreme 519, wherein it is held in the case of compassionate appointment, consideration ought to be in terms of the rule/instructions prevailing, when the appointment is sought for.

( 4. ) SHRI Patne, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this court delivered on 4-8-2003 in W. P. No. 5245/2002, Smt. Anupama @ Sadhna pawar vs. Chairman, M. P. State Electricity Board and others. It is submitted by him that in the above judgment, identical question was involved, and the claim was rejected by the M. P. S. E. B. in reference to the policy dated 1-9-2000, however, following the Division Bench judgment in case of T. Swami Daas vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2002 (3) MPLJ 242, this Court has quashed the order of rejection, and issued the direction to consider his application, afresh in the light of the policy, which was in existence on the date of application. The said order of learned Single Judge was challenged by M. P. S. E. B. in L. P. A. , which was dismissed by the Division Bench; and held that scheme dated 1-9-2000 was issued subsequent to the death of deceased and the contention of the board, which is based upon later policy cannot be accept. The order of the Single bench and the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court in special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Smt. Anupama @ sadhna Pawar was given compassionate appointment on 23-11-2005, and she is working. However, it is urged that petitioner may also be allowed similar benefit without any discrimination, at par to Smt. Anupama @ Sadhna.

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel has further placed the reliance on judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of india Ltd, and others, reported in 2000 SCC (L and S) 767 and Govind Prakash verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation