Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed that respondents be directed to give compassionate appointment to him.

Father of the petitioner namely late Shri Rampati Singh was in the service of State of M.P. He worked as Upper Division Clerk in the Weight and Measurement, Department. It appears that near the age of superannuation he was given retirement on 2.3.1998 w.e.J. 7.1.1998 as per order (P-4). He died on 11.7.1999. Initially Shri Shailendra Singh applied in the life time of Shri Rampati Singh for appointment on compassionate ground. His case was rejected by the State Government. Thereafter present petitioner Shailendra Singh applied for compassionate appointment which prayer too has been rejected as per order (P-6) dated 8.10.2003. This writ petition has been filed for quashment of order (P-6) dated 8.10.2003. Order (P-6) is assailed on the ground that deceased employee was disqualified on the medical ground and retirement was ordered, thus, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered and appointment ought to have been ordered. Action is illegal and arbitrary.

Shri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Appointment ought to have been ordered in accordance with the modified policy which has been placed on record by the petitioner with the list of documents. He has further submitted that when retirement was ordered on medical ground, the respondents ought to have appointed the petitioner on compassionate basis.

A perusal of the policy contained in memo dated 17.1.2002 indicates that the appointment can be given only in case an employee has died while he was in service and the family is in penurious condition and suffering financial distress. The compassionate appointment has not been provided in case of an employee has been retired on medical unfitness. In the instant case, it has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that employee was retired at the age of 57 years, thus employee was on the verge of age of superannuation and he has died in the year 1999. The deceased was in receipt of admissible pension and other retiral dues were also paid. Deceased employee has rendered services for long period and was retired on medical ground just on the verge of superannuation. There is no provision of offer compassionate appointment in the case when an employee has been retired on medical ground, in my opinion, it is not open to the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment. It cannot be said that family was in penurious condition. Employee has utilized the services to the maximum and was on the verge of retirement, he was in receipt of pension etc. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any such unforseen situation faced by the family of the employee so that family was not able to maintain itself. Compassionate appointment cannot be ordered by the Court de hors of the policy. It is not for this Court to frame policy. It cannot be said that rejection of the case of petitioner suffers with any illegality or arbitrariness.

In Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Pramoda Dei [(1997) 11 SCC 390] the Apex Court has held that mere death of the employee does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. The Apex Court has further laid down that rehabilitation appointment has not to be given in all cases where it became due because of death of an employee in harness or by his permanent disability. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the; sudden financial crisis.

In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar1(2000) 7 SCC 192, the Apex Court has laid down that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to "tide over sudden crisis" resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any mea