Rusia, J -- 1. Heard on I. A. No. 1736/2019 an application for condonation of delay.

2. As per office objection, the appeal is barred by 269 days.

3. According to the appellant, against the impugned order dated 11.4.2018, Review Petition was filed which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2018. Thereafter, legal opinion was sought from the Govt. Advocate which was received on 9.10.2018 and sent to the Law Department. Vide order dated 04.12.2018, the Law Department granted the permission to file writ appeal which was received by the OIC on 27.12.2018, thereafter, writ appeal was prepared and filed before this Court.

4. Considering the aforesaid procedure delay and contents of application as supported by an affidavit of Office-in-Charge of the Case , the delay in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned.

5. Also heard on the question of admission.

6. The appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh and others ( respondents in the writ petition) have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by order dated 11.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1273/2017 whereby the writ petition was allowed by giving direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compensate appointment in view of the policy dated 31.8.2016.

7. The facts of the case in short are that father of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) was appointed as linemen in Public Health Engineering Department, Ujjain in the year 1985. Vide order dated 24.6.2013, he was given appointment in contingency establishment. While working in the department, he died on 4.7.2016. The petitioner, being one of the dependent, filed a representation for grant of compassionate appointment to him. By order dated 25.10.2016, the respondent has rejected his claim on the ground that in the policy dated 31.8.2016, the dependent of deceased employee died while working in the work charge and contingency establishment have been held entitle for compassionate appointment w.e.f. 31.8.2016 since his father i.e. Punamchand Jatav died on 4.7.2016, therefore, he is not entitle for compassionate appointment.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. The petitioner/ respondent filed detailed reply in the writ petition by submitting that the claim of the petitioner was rightly considered in view of the policy dated 29.9.2014 which was in vogue at the time of death of his father in which there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee worked in the work charged & contingency establishment. The policy dated 31.8.2016 is prospective in nature, hence, the respondents have rightly rejected his claim.

9. In support of his contention, the respondents have placed reliance on the judgement passed in the case of Canara Bank and another. v. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015 (7) SCC 417.

10. By order dated 11.4.2018, the writ Court has allowed the writ petition by placing reliance over the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the Case of Dilip More v. State of M.P. and another Passed in Writ Petition No. 2692/2017 decided on 21.3.2018 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the policy dated 31.8.2016 and will not reject on the ground that his father was the employee of work charge contingency paid establishment.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents have preferred this appeal before this Court.

12. We have heard the learned government advocate appearing for the appellants and also perused the record.

13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/ State is that the case of the petitioner has rightly been considered in view of the policy dated 31.8.2016 in which first time the dependents of employee who died while working in the work charge & contingency establishment has been held entitle for the compassionate appointment and under the policy dated 29.9.2014 they were entitled only