Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground as chowkidar on account of death of his father in harness. 3. Precisely, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, namely, late Gopal Sao, was working as Awaji chowkidar since 1.7.1971 and he died on 20th October, 1994 in harness and the petitioner thereafter applied for his appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by the State authority vide order, as contained in Annexure J to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.09.2004. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner though was working as awaji chowkidar, but he was treated as regular chowkidar and was getting his remuneration of. regular chowkidar and he received the same from 1971 to 1994 and the authorities recommended for his absorption as a chowkidar and, in that view of the matter, the petitioner must be treated to be a Government employee for all practical purposes and consequently thereof, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per the rules framed by the State Government. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the father of the petitioner was not regularised as chowkidar and althrough he had worked as awaji chowkidar and he was never treated to be a Government employee, and, therefore, claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the authorities, as his case was not covered under the rules framed by the State Government for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. From the facts of this case, it appears that the father of the petitioner was treated to be a casual employee, therefore, the authority had recommended for his permanent absorption as permanent chowkidar, but till his death, he was not absorbed as permanent chowkidar, and, thus, he was not treated as a Government employee. 7. In view of these facts, in my opinion, the provisions of the rules framed by the State Government for appointment on compassionate ground are not attracted, and, therefore, the petitioner is held to be not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.