- (1.) The case was called out twice. None appeared for the respondent, though the name of Mr Mohan Pandey has been shown in the cause-list Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 19-4-2004 passed in LPA No. 54 of 2004. The short question involved in this case is whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment.
(2.) Admittedly, the respondent was a legally adopted daughter of late Satish Sahu who was not married and died in harness on 17-3-2000. After his death, the respondent claimed compassionate appointment.
(3.) We have perused the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. Clause 3(f), which is the relevant clause in this case, states as under: "3. (l) 'Dependant' means in case of a married employee, a son (including adopted son) or a daughter or, if the deceased employee has left behind no children of his/her own eligible for appointment, any other relative nominated by the spouse on which she/he will be wholly dependent. In case of an unmarried employee, 'dependant' means a brother or a sister" It may be noted from the aforesaid clause that in case of an unmarried employee, the dependant means a brother or a sister. Hence, an adopted child of an unmarried employee cannot be said to be a dependant under the said Scheme. Accordingly, he or she cannot be given the compassionate appointment.;