JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. There is a delay of 540 days in filing the Writ Appeal. Condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A. No. 257/2020. For the reasons which find mention in the application and which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the period of limitation, sufficient cause is made out. Consequently, delay is condoned. I.A. No. 257/2020 stands disposed of. 2. This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 16.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1785/2014 and order dated 28.6.2019 passed in Review Petition No. 552/2019. 3. The Writ Petition was directed against the order dated 28.11.2013 whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his father who died on 18.10.2013 was a member of workcharged and contingency paid establishment and the scheme of compassionate appointment does not contain provision for appointment of the dependent of deceased work-charged employee. 4. Learned Single Judge assuming that had the workman being regularized, directed the State to consider the claim. Learned Single Judge further applied the principle of retrospective applicability of the circular issued on subsequent date, i.e., 31.8.2016. 5. The issue as to whether when there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the wards of employees on work-charged and contingency paid establishment came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in Writ Appeal No. 77/2017 Jagendra Singh Bhadoria v. State of M.P. decided on 28.6.2017; wherein it is held: '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. Since the policy does not have any provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employee who was working on work charged 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. Since the policy does not have any provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employee who was working on work charged 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. The appellant seeks parity with an order passed by learned Single Bench in WP-2731-2010 ( Shahjad Khan vs State of M.P. ) decided on 23.01.2012 and later on affirmed on 1.03.2013 in WA-110-2013 ( State of M.P. & ors. Vs 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. (Work Charged 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. 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. 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. A reference can be made to the decision in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs 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. 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 & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, 2006 (9) SCALE 549 , Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, 2006 (11) SCALE 258 , State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. 2006 (13) SCALE 319 and State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [ 2007 (12) SCALE 72 ]. 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." 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." 6. It appears that the said decision was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. Be that as it may. When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the decision in Jagendra Singh Bhadoria (supra) the same cannot be upheld. It appears that the said decision was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. Be that as it may. When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the decision in Jagendra Singh Bhadoria (supra) the same cannot be upheld. Consequently the impugned order passed in Writ Petition No. 1785/2014 and Review Petition No. 552/2019 are set aside. 7. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 8. Appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.