ORDER 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16/6/2021 (Annexure P/5) and order dated 28/10/2021 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 respectively whereby their claim for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that Rahul Lobaniya was employed with the respondents / bank as a clerk. He expired on 22/4/2021 in harness. Thereafter petitioner No.1 made an application on 8/6/2021 before respondents for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis submitting that petitioner No.2 is brother of the deceased and the entire family is dependent upon him hence as per the policy for appointment on compassionate basis of the respondents he deserves to be granted such appointment. The application has been rejected by respondents No.1 and 2 by the impugned orders on the ground that name of petitioner No.2 was not mentioned as a dependent by the deceased while he was in service hence he is not entitled for such appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis which is contrary to their own policy in that regard. There is no rule that application for compassionate appointment can only be made by dependant whose name is mentioned in the service records of the deceased. The appointment has to be made in terms of the policy and petitioner No.2 fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down therein. The entire family of the petitioners was dependent upon the deceased and if petitioner No.2 is given compassionate appointment it would enure to the benefit of the entire family. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and petitioner No.2 deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner No.2 does not fall under the Scheme of compassionate appointment prevailing in the respondents /bank as per which compassionate appointment can be provided only to eligible dependent member of the family. At the time of joining service on 17/4/2017 deceased Rahul Lobaniya had furnished the details of his family members along with declaration as regards the members dependent upon him. At the time of joining service on 17/4/2017 deceased Rahul Lobaniya had furnished the details of his family members along with declaration as regards the members dependent upon him. Though name of his father, mother and sister was mentioned as dependent members but name of petitioner No.2 was not so mentioned and on the contrary he was stated to be an employee. He is thus not entitled for compassionate appointment in view of which his claim has rightly been rejected by impugned orders in which there is no infirmity. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. For the purpose of determining eligibility of petitioner No.2 for being appointed on compassionate basis upon death of his brother Rahul Lobaniya it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the policy for compassionate appointment of the respondents approved by its Board of Directors on 21/6/2019 the applicability of which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Clause 1 of the Policy deals with the coverage and Clause II deals with the definition of dependent family members. For ready reference the same are reproduced hereunder :- “1. COVERAGE 1.1 To a dependent family member of permanent employee of Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank who – a) Dies while in service (including death by suicide) b) Is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years (incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarters Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the purpose). 1.2. For the purpose of the Scheme, “employee” would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part-time on scale wages, at the time of death/retirement on medical grounds, before reaching age of 55 years and does not include any one engaged on contract/temporary/casual or any person who is paid on commission basis “2. DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBERS 2.1. Spouse; or 2.2. Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or 2.3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or 2.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee” 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, it is revealed that compassionate appointment can be granted to dependent family member of permanent employee who dies while in service. Wholly dependent son (including legally adopted son); or 2.3. Wholly dependent daughter (including legally adopted daughter); or 2.4 Wholly dependent brother or sister in the case of unmarried employee” 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, it is revealed that compassionate appointment can be granted to dependent family member of permanent employee who dies while in service. Dependent family member would include spouse, wholly dependent son, wholly dependent daughter or wholly dependent brother and sister in case of unmarried employee. 8. In the present case, at the time of joining his services, Rahul Lobaniya had filled up the details of his family members along with declaration with respect to members who are dependent upon him. In information (Annexure R/2) he gave details of his family members who were his father, mother, brother petitioner No.2 and his sister. He specifically stated that petitioner No.2 is an “employee”. In the declaration as regards his family members who are dependent upon him, he did not include the name of petitioner No.2 and included only the names of his father, mother and sister. Thus in the information / declaration given by Rahul Lobaniya himself, he did not state that petitioner No.2 is a family member who is dependent upon him and on the contrary stated that he is already employed meaning thereby that he is not dependent upon him. 9. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that petitioner No.2 is not employed then also the fact remains that in his declaration the deceased had not stated that petitioner No.2 is dependent upon him which is a condition precedent for petitioner No.2 to claim appointment on compassionate basis. He cannot contend that he was dependent upon the deceased when the deceased himself did not say so. Thus petitioner No.2 does not fulfill the criteria laid down in the scheme of the respondents and is consequently not entitled for compassionate appointment thereunder in view of which respondents have not committed any illegality in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners for such appointment. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any fault or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The petition is found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.