Yadav, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 22.6.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.8843/2015; whereby, claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of his mother, has been turned down, as one of the brother of the appellant was found to be working as Assistant Surgeon in the services of the State Government.

2. Mother of the appellant, employed as Lab Attendant in Higher Education Department, expired on 30.9.2010. He sought appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of her mother. The claim was turned down vide communication dated 20.5.2011 on the ground that his elder brother is employed in Government service. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition No.1637/2013. The petition was disposed of on 8.2.2013 by taking into consideration the contention that the petitioner may be given an opportunity for fresh representation raising the ground that if the brother, who is employed in Government service, is living separately, then petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. On re-representation, the claim was reconsidered and rejected by order dated 2.4.2013 on the ground that the elder son of the Government servant (elder brother of the appellant) being employed as Doctor in Government service, the appellant was not entitled for the appointment.

3. Aggrieved, appellant again filed a Writ Petition No.8520/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2015 with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim. Whereon, by order dated 4.4.2015, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground was turned down by holding:-

^^5- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tcyiqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 29-11-2015 ds vuqikyu esa Jh izts'k JhokLro fuoklh 'kgMksy }kjk izLrqr vH;konsu fnukad 13-2-2015 dk vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds izpfyr fu;eksa ds varxZr iqu%ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] ;g ik;k x;k fd fnoaxr ds T;s"B iq= MkW- iadt JhokLro tks fd fnoaxr ds ifjokj ds fufoZokn :i ls lnL; gSa] e/; izns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e 2 esa ifjHkkf"kr 'kkldh; lsod gSA vr% fnoxar 'kkldh; lsod ds T;s"B iq= MkW- iadt JhokLro ds 'kkldh; lsok esa fpfdRld ds in ij fu;ksftr gksus ls fnoaxr ds iq= vkosnd Jh izts'k JhokLro dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds izpfyr fu;eksa ds varxZr vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gSA**

4. Apparent it is from the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 that the writ Court relied on clause 4.1 of the Policy for appointment on compassionate ground, brought in vogue by the General Administration Department, vide letter No.C.3-4/1/3/06 dated 18th August, 2008 (brought on record in writ petition as Annexure P-15) and opined that “if any one person of the family is already in Government service, then rest of the persons are not eligible to get compassionate appointment”.

5. Contentions on behalf of the appellant is that though his brother is employed as Assistant Surgeon with the State Government but, since he is living separately, he cannot be construed as a “member of family” as contemplated in the Policy. Inference is drawn from two decisions rendered in Ku. Priyanka Dixit v. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.3250/2006(s) decided on 17.7.2007], and Prakash Parmar v. Government of M.P. [2012(4) MPLJ 539].

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that the Policy relates to compassionate appointment, it does not create any right in an incumbent for appointment, but only extend a privilege in favour of the wards of Government servant who die in harness and to retrieve the family from financial penury. It is urged that narrow construction given to the expression ‘member of family’ as it appear in the Policy of 2008, that it will exclude such members of the family who are employed and live separately, would run contrary to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality of opportunity for all citi