ORDER 1. None appears for the parties when the matter is called out - presumably in terms of the resolution of the High Court Bar Association dated 28.6.2017 for abstaining from Court work. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 27.10.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.6556/2006(s); whereby, the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment remained unsuccessful. 3. The deceased Raj Bahadur Singh was working on the post of Nandi Rakshak, a contingency paid post. He died on 28.4.2003. The appellant sought compassionate appointment on account of death of his father. By communication dated 22.1.2004, his request was not accepted inter alia on the ground that in terms of policy dated 1.5.2000, a dependant of workcharged employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved of the said communication, the appellant invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court which remained unsuccessful by the impugned order. 4. As rightly observed by learned Single Bench that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time, the object being to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises, when it faces at the time of the death of the employee and that the claim can only be considered in accordance with the policy framed from time to time. 5. Since the policy does not have any provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employee who was working on workcharged establishment which would include the contingency paid establishment; therefore, the appellant is not entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground as the deceased was not on regular establishment. 6. The appellant seeks parity with an order passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.2731-2010 (Shahjad Khan v. State of M.P.) decided on 23.1.2012 and later on affirmed on 1.3.2013 in Writ Appeal No.110-2013 (State of M.P. and others v. Shahjad Khan). Learned Single Bench in Shahjad Khan (supra), directed the State to examine as to whether the deceased has qualified for the status of permanent employee as is required under rule 2(c) of M.P. (Workcharged Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis to be considered accordingly. In an appeal, the Division Bench taking into consideration the certificate of employment found that in fact the deceased was drawing regular pay-scale and the certificate disclosing the date of superannuation as well. In an appeal, the Division Bench taking into consideration the certificate of employment found that in fact the deceased was drawing regular pay-scale and the certificate disclosing the date of superannuation as well. Thus, it appears that the Division Bench treated the deceased as regular employee. We do not find that the said orders are in any way helpful to the appellant. 7. Even if an employee qualifies status of permanent employee, he does not become a permanent employee unless an order to that effect is passed by the competent authority. On passing of the order alone, an employee becomes the member of regular cadre. Merely the fact that an employee satisfies the criteria of permanent employee does not mean that he gets the status of permanent employee. 8. A reference can be made to the decision in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi [ (2008)2 SCC 310 ], wherein the claim for family pension of the wife of the deceased was declined for the reason that the deceased has not been made a permanent employee during his life time. The relevant extract from the said judgment read as under :- “16. The scheme relating to grant of family pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2 vis-a-vis the Family Pension Scheme, it would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any family pension. Husband of the respondent was a work-charge employee. His services had never been regularized. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularization scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and others [ (2005)2 SCC 638 ], State of Bihar and others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [ 2006(9) SCALE 549 ], Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [ 2006(11) SCALE 258 ], State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi and others [ 2006(13) SCALE 319 ] and State of M.P. and others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others [2007(12) SCALE 72]. 17. 17. They statutory provisions, as noticed hereinbefore, debar grant of family pension in favour of the family members as the deceased employee if was a work-charge employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charge employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are regularized and he becomes permanent and not otherwise.” 9. A dependant of a deceased engaged on contingency paid establishment, cannot claim parity with regular Government employee in the matter of compassionate appointment. Further, father of the appellant died in the year 2003, therefore, consideration of his application at this stage is unwarranted after long lapse of time as the appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the acute financial stringency which the family suffers on account of untimely death but such financial stringency does not survive after many years of death. 10. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the appeal as the dependant of contingency paid worker is not a regular employee and thus not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.