ORDER

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to order dated 16.5.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father.

2. The undisputed facts in brief are as under:-

(i) The father of the petitioner namely Late Laxman Prasad Raikwar was working on the post of “Helper” against Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment under the respondent department, who passed away on 20.1.2015.

(ii) The petitioner submitted an application for his compassionate appointment on 20.3.2015, as per policy dated 29.9.2014.

(iii) On 31.8.2016, Clause 11.1 of the policy dated 29.9.2014 was clarified to the extent that the dependent of deceased employee who was working against Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment would also be entitled for compassionate appointment. The State Government on 21st March, 2017 (Annexure R/4) has further clarified that the provision/decision dated 31.8.2016 providing compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased employee working against Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment, would be applicable only w.e.f. 31.8.2016 and prior to that, the cases for compassionate appointment would be considered as per earlier provisions/policy dated 29.9.2014.

(iv) The request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 16.5.2017 (Annexure P/3) on the ground that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the earlier policy dated 29.9.2014, and the new provision/policy dated 31.8.2016 would not be applicable in his case.

(v) On 24.4.2015 (Annexure R/1), the widow of Late Shri Laxman Prasad Raikwar had already been paid consolidated sum of Rs.2 Lacs as Anukampa Anudan as per Clause 11.1 of the policy dated 29.9.2014.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that vide policy/circular dated 31.8.2016, the provision for compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee who was working on Work Charged and Contingency paid Establishment has been made, however, the same has to be read with the main policy dated 29.9.2014, and is applicable w.e.f 29.9.2014 itself. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Bheru Singh, W.A. No.241/2017 order dated 6.11.2017 , Dilip More v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another,W.P. No.2692/2017 order dated 21.3.2018 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sonu Jatav, W.A. No.601/2019 order dated 3.5.2019.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the decisions as cited by the petitioner do not consider the clarification vide Annexure R/4 dated 21.3.2017, wherein it was clarified that the amended Clause 11.1 would be applicable from 31.8.2016 and any death occurred before 31.8.2016 will not be covered under amended Clause 11.1. The entitlement of compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the policy existing on the date of death of deceased employee. He has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank and others v. Promila and another (2020) 2 SCC 729.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

6. It is settled legal position that compassionate employment is not an alternate method of public employment but the same is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

7. For proper understanding of the policy, which was applicable on the date of death of the deceased employee, it is thought apposite to reproduce Clause 11.1 of the main policy dated 29.9.2014 which reads as under:-

^^11- dk;ZHkkfjr vkdfLderk ,oa nSfud o