ORDER

Yadav, J -- 1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyan, 2005, is directed against the order dated 8.1.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 9631/2017 whereby, challenge to order dated 20.1.2017 has been negatived.

2. That, by order dated 20.01.2017, claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of death of her father was negatived on the ground that she does not fall in the category of persons who are entitled for such appointment as stipulated in Clause 2.2 of the Chief General Manager’s Order No. lk &435/7836-37 dated 12.12.2014 which stipulates that “only son, unmarried daughter, widowed daughter or divorcee daughter dependent on the employee who dies in harness” are entitled for consideration for said appointment. As the petitioner was a married daughter, she was declined the appointment.

3. Father of the petitioner was employed as Senior Lineman with respondent-organization who died while in service on 5.4.2016. Petitioner, married daughter, living with her husband, gave a representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the plea that her mother is old and the brother is vagabond and has not borne the responsibility. It was stated that the petitioner was dependent on his parents and almost separated with her husband. Evidently, no order regarding judicial separation or of divorce was filed. Be that as it may. The petitioner was not falling within the category under Clause 2.2 of the Policy.

4. Learned Single Judge observing that the petitioner does not fall into any of the category of Clause 2.2 and that the petitioner did not challenge its validity, declined indulgence. It also observed :

“That apart, the division bench in the similar circumstances vide order dated 23.10.2017 passed in WP No. 270/2017 in the case of Sanjay Shriwas v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director MP Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.Ltd & another and vide order dated 10.7.2018 in WP No. 7713/2016 in the case of Ravi Talimpuri v. State of MP & four others has upheld the policy as also the order of rejection of compassionate appointment based upon the Policy of 2013.

That apart, in the present case, the claim for compassionate appointment is in respect of the married daughter and there is nothing on record to show that the married daughter has no means to support herself. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the petitioners case for compassionate appointment by the impugned order dated 14.7.2017 because the petitioner is not eligible as per the terms of the Policy of Compassionate Appointment of 2013.”

5. Appellant questions the order on the contention that the view taken by learned Single Judge is contrary to the decision by a Division Bench at Indore in the case of Smt. Meenakshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others : Writ Petition No. 3769/2017 decided on 09.10.2018; wherein the Co-ordinate Bench, dwelling on Clauses 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the Policy of the State Govt. for compassionate appointment, which mandates :

2-2 e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@ifRu }kjk ;ksX;rk u j[kus vFkok Lo;a vuqdaik fu;qfDr u ysuk pkgs rks mlds }kjk ukekafdr iq= ;k vfookfgr iq=h A
2-3 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr gksdj mlds lkFk jg jgh gks vFkok mijksDr ik= lnL; u gksus dh fLFkfr esa fo?kok iq=o/kq tks ‘kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kr% vkfJr gksdj muds lkFk jg jgh gks A
2-4 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh larku flQZ iq=h@iqf=;k¡ gks vkSj og fookfgr gks rks fnoaxr ‘kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@ifRu }kjk ukekafdr fookfgr iq=h A
;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd e`rd 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@iRuh thfor gksus ij gh fookfgr iq=h dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk gksxhA ¼,sls vuqdaik fu;qfDr ikus okyh iq=h dks 'kkldh; lsod ds vkfJr ifr@ifRuh ds ikyu iks"k.k dh ftEesnkjh dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksa½

- and by relying on the decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Associatio