ORDER Jaiswal, J--1. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.2.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 6563/2016, by which the learned writ Court considering the fact that notice which was issued to late Shri Narendra Kumar Bhatnagar on 19.3.2015 (Annexure R-3) was duly served on him, as is evident from the acknowledgment and India Postal receipt filed by the respondents along with reply and held that he was given a proper notice that his compulsory retirement will come into force on 18.6.2015. It is also held that he was compulsorily retired prior to his death and, therefore, the policy for grant of compassionate appointment is not at all attracted and dismissed the writ petition in which a prayer was made for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2 and prayer to quash the order dated 18.6.2015 by which the deceased – employee has compulsorily been retired has been also rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the late Shri Narendra Bhatnagar was considered by the Screening Committee for the compulsory retirement in public interest after completion of qualifying service of 20 years or on attaining the age of 50 years and after due scrutiny of the service record of the appellant's husband, it was found that his services were not required to continue in public interest therefore after giving him three months notice, an order was issued on 18.6.2015 for his compulsory retirement from the service, upon completion of 50 years of age and / or completion of 20 years of service, by examining his service record and on the basis of the ACR's of the delinquent employee, which was found below average. 3. As per Annexure R-1, the screening committee was constituted by erst-while M.P. State Electricity Board on 5.4.2007, in line with the detailed directions of the State Government, reflecting in various circulars for examining the entire service record of the officers of the Board /Company. The aforesaid circular provide that before taking any action/decision regarding the compulsorily retirement of an employee, the Screening Committee shall be guided and consider the following guidelines : (I) Entire Service Record of the Employee would be examined, while making the evaluation of his Honesty and Sincerity towards his Job. (I) Physical Fitness and Deficiency shall be examined. The aforesaid circular provide that before taking any action/decision regarding the compulsorily retirement of an employee, the Screening Committee shall be guided and consider the following guidelines : (I) Entire Service Record of the Employee would be examined, while making the evaluation of his Honesty and Sincerity towards his Job. (I) Physical Fitness and Deficiency shall be examined. (II) Personal Reputation and Efficiency of the Employee shall be assessed on the basis of the Entire Service Record and while evaluating this aspect, it would not necessary to see as if the Adverse Remarks were communicated to him in the past or not. (III) Whether in the Overall Assessment of the Emplo0yee any Lower Ranking find mention in the Grading recorded by the Authorities, which demonstrates that his Performance is deteriorating in the previous/ past 5 years. (IV) The Screening Committee was further empowered to take into account of the Confidential Reports and the details of the Disciplinary Inquiry and Penalties imposed, during the entire duration of the Service of the Employee.” 3. The entire service record of the husband of the appellant was considered and it was found that the employee failed to pass the prescribed test of excellence and failed to fit into the bench mark, prescribed for continuing in the establishment of the Company and as such, continuation of services, in the establishment, was not recommended for being continued, on being not in public interest, as per the guidelines and the scheme of scrutiny, contained in various such circulars and the husband of the appellant was ordered to be compulsorily retired. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on 18.6.2015, after completion of three months since the husband of the appellant was continuously absent from the duty, which was amounting to unauthorized leave therefore the order was sent to his known residential address through personal messenger and the same was received by the present appellant herself for which a panchanama was also prepared and appellant was also signatory of the Panchanama as well as receiving receipt of the order. The terminal dues of the appellant's husband was also settled and final pension and gratuity payment order was issued on 29.3.2016, by releasing all the admissible retiral benefits to the appellant including family pension. 4. The terminal dues of the appellant's husband was also settled and final pension and gratuity payment order was issued on 29.3.2016, by releasing all the admissible retiral benefits to the appellant including family pension. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable that no proper procedure has been adopted while passing the order of compulsory retirement. The show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, the ACR's for the period prescribed under the guidelines and Rules was considered and thereafter, the order of compulsory retirement was passed and communicated to the appellant. The Screening Committee constituted lawfully and there appears to be no prejudice being caused to the delinquent employee. 5. As per impugned order, the learned writ Court has minutely gone through the report of the Screening Committee, which reflects that the ACR's were into account right from 1989 to 2014. The respondents have meticulously considered the case of the husband of the appellant and he was compulsorily retired prior to his death, and therefore, the learned writ Court has rightly held that present appellant (Petitioner No. 1 therein) is not entitled for compassionate appointment because the policy for grant of compassionate appointment is not at all attracted. Relevant part of the order dated 2.2.2018 reads as under : “A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have stated that a Screening Committee was constituted in light of the instruction framed on the subject dated 5.4.2017 and the case of late Shri Bhatnagar was considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 19.3.2015. Late Shri Bhatnagar was given a proper notice on 19.3.2015 that his compulsory retirement will come into force on 18.6.2015. The notice was duly received and served to the deceased employee and his compulsory retirement came into force on 18.6.2015. The respondents have also filed all minute details in respect of A.C.Rs. of the deceased and stated that it is a case of weeding out the deadwood on completion of fifty years of age or twenty years of service. This Court has minutely gone through the report of the Screening Committee, which reflects that the A.C.Rs. Were into account right from 1989 to 2014. of the deceased and stated that it is a case of weeding out the deadwood on completion of fifty years of age or twenty years of service. This Court has minutely gone through the report of the Screening Committee, which reflects that the A.C.Rs. Were into account right from 1989 to 2014. The respondents have meticulously considered the case of Late Shri Bhatnagar and he was compulsorily retired prior to his death, and therefore, it is not a case where an employee was no more alive and has compulsorily been retired. Not only this, after retirement of late Shri Bhatnagar, the respondents have paid all terminal dues to the family/petitioners. As it is case of compulsory retirement, the policy for grant of compassionate appointment is not at all attracted and this Court neither find any reason to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement nor the petitioner No. 2 is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents have already paid all terminal dues. In case, any other amount is due, the petitioner shall be free to submit a proper application to the respondents claiming any other amount, which as per their calculation is due and in case if such application is preferred, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the respondents arrive at a conclusion that some other amount is also due to the petitioners after passing the order, the same shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 6. On due consideration of the aforesaid, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Writ Appeal No. 367 of 2018, filed by the appellant has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.