ORDER : 1. The case was called out twice. 2. None appeared for the respondent, though the name of Mr. Mohan Pandey has been shown in the cause list. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants. 4. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 19th April, 2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 54 of 2004. 5. The short question involved in this case is whether the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment. 6. Admittedly, the respondent was a legally adopted daughter of late Satish Sahu who was not married and died in harness on 17th March, 2000. After his death, the respondent claimed compassionate appointment. 7. We have perused the Scheme of compassionate appointment. Clause 3(f), which is the relevant clause in this case, states as under: “3(f). Dependent 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 ‘dependent’ means a brother or a sister.” 8. It may be noted from the aforesaid clause that in case of an unmarried employee, the dependent means a brother or a sister. Hence, an adopted child of an unmarried employee cannot be said to be dependent under the said Scheme. Accordingly, he or she cannot be given the compassionate appointment. 9. For the reasons given above, we cannot agree with the High Court and we set aside the impugned judgment. 10. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.