ORDER 1. Heard on IA No. 447 of 2011, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present writ appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the delay is of 71 days. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, if delay in filing the present writ appeal is condoned and matter is heard finally. 3. In view of aforesaid, IA No. 447 of 2011 is allowed. The delay in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. 4. Also heard on the question of admission. 5. This writ Appeal, under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 2800 of 2009 (S) in which the petitioner challenged the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District – Mandsaur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. The learned Single Judge found that on the date of death (19.8.2006) of the mother of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was in the Government service, though he attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.2007 i.e. after the death of petitioner's mother, but as per the policy issued by the State Government the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment, the competent authority of the State Government has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the order of learned Single Judge by reading out para 2.2 and 4.1 of the Policy (Annexure P-4) issued by the State Government with regard to compassionate appointment dated 22.1.2007 but we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention. 8. The requisite eligibility for the compassionate appointment as provided under para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Policy reads thus :" ^^2-1- fnoaxr ‘kkldh; lsod dh iRuh] vFkok iw.kZr% vkfJr ifr dks] vFkok 2-2& foaxr ‘kkldh; lsod dk iq= vFkok vfookfgr iq=h vFkok ,slh vfookfgr iq=h ftlds ifr dh e`R;q gks pqdh gks vFkok tks rykd'kqnk gks] fdarq ‘krZ ;g gksxh fd ,slh vfookfgr] fookfgr vFkok rykd'kqnk iq=h fnoaxr ‘kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr gksdj mlds lkFk jgh gks** 9. As per para 2.1 of the Policy, the first entitlement for compassionate appointment is of deceased's husband of the wife as the case may be and thereafter in para 2.2 it is clearly mentioned that son, unmarried daughter or the daughter who has lost her husband, divorce daughter of the deceased Government employee can apply for the compassionate appointment. 10. Admittedly, in this case the date on which the mother of the petitioner, died i.e. 19.8.2006, the father of the petitioner was alive and was in Government service, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for, compassionate appointment and the competent authority has rightly turned down the case of the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Policy, the petitioner is entitled for a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) by the State Government, but this aspect of the matter was not considered by the State Government. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner never prayed for disbursement of the aforesaid amount and only insisted for compassionate appointment, which was turned down. Petitioner may file an application for disbursement of the said amount and if the authorities found his case fit for disbursement, the same shall be considered by them. 13. [n view of the aforesaid, while dismissing the present writ appeal we grant a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for disbursement of Rs. 1 lac before the competent authority, who shall then consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the policy and decide it expeditiously. 14. C.c. within three days. No order as to costs.