ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated 15.9.2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner's request for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by virtue of Clause 4.1 of policy, dated 29.9.2014.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner's father, late Shri Shiromani Singh Parmar, as working as Officiating Head Constable in 29th Battalion, SAF, Datia. He expired on 1.2.2022 while in service. After his death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.1.2023 (Annexure P/6). This application has been rejected by impugned order, dated 15.9.2023.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of compassionate appointment by invoking Clause 4.1 of the policy, dated 29.9.2024, on ground that her sister is already in the Government employment. He submitted that the petitioner's sister has already married on 9.12.2022 and, therefore, she cannot be considered to be a member of family of the deceased-father and, therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the policy are not attracted. He submitted that the petitioner's sister once married, is not expected to take care of the dependents of family of the father. He thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set-aside. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the apex Court judgment in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. Somyashree reported in (2021)12 SCC 20 as also in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Premlata reported in (2022)1 SCC 30.

4. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that on the date of death, the petitioner's sister was not married and was in Government employment holding the post of Subinspector in the Police Department. He submitted that the marriage of the sister took place much after the death of the employee on 9.12.2022. Therefore, on the date of death of the employee, the petitioner's sister since was in Government employment, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the petitioner herself is married and is not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. The respondents' counsel also submitted that the petitioner herself was aged about 30 years on the date of rejection of the application who shows that she is self dependent and does not warrant compassionate appointment.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father expired on 1.2.2022. The petitioner has also not disputed that on the date of death of petitioner's father her sister namely, Ragini Parmar, was working as Sub-inspector in the Police Department. Thus, on the date of death of her father, the petitioner was not eligible for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment in view of Clause 4.1 of policy, dated 29.9.2014. This issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2016(3) MPLJ 88 wherein, the Division Bench held as under;

"31. The foremost factor for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, is to protect the family in question from penury on the death of sole bread earner. It is in the light of this aspect Clause 4.1 is to be understood. It states that in case any eligible member of the deceased family is in Government service, he will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Apparently, the Clause is loosely drafted. If a family member at best residing separately is already in employment in Government service, there is no need for him to file an application for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of death of father, mother or brother, as the case may be. The need arises only when “no one in the family” is in employment of the State or instrumentali