ORDER Yadav, J:-- 1. Heard on I.A. No.2544/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay. Looking to the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The instant intra Court appeal has been filed under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh (Uchchanyayalaya Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 22.8.2023 passed in W.P. No.16939/2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed with direction to the authority to give appointment to respondent herein on the post of peon with the District Education Officer, Datia forthwith. 2. The brief facts of the case are that husband of the respondent was entered into the service as Shiksha Karmi Class-III vide order dated 6.1.1999 in Janpad Panchayat, Seondha District Datia. Subsequently, the services of the husband of respondent were absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak in the same Janpad Panchayat vide order dated 22.2.2008. While in service working as Sahayak Adhyapak, husband of the respondent died in harness on 5.10.2015. The respondent, thereafter, in the year, 2019 submitted an application for compassionate appointment. When no action was taken on the said application, the respondent submitted various representations to the various authorities inter-alia contending that if she cannot be given appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III on compassionate ground, then she may be given compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post. The District Education Officer, thereafter, vide order dated 27.7.2020 decided the claim of the respondent by recording that the respondent is not having requisite educational qualification for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, consequently, she is not eligible to be appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III on compassionate ground. However, in view of the circular dated 18.4.2017 issued by Commissioner Public Instructions, the compassionate grant of Rs.1,00,000/- was extended to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed W.P. No.12137/2020 before this Court. The learned Writ Court vide order dated 27.8.2020 set aside the order dated 27.7.2020 passed by District Education Officer and remanded the matter back to decide the application of the respondent afresh in light of the representation made by her on 22.11.2019. Inter-alia contending that she may be granted compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post. The District Education Officer reconsidered the matter and rejected the claim of the respondent vide order dated 15.10.2020. 3. The said order was again challenged by the respondent in W.P. No.16939/2020 (present matter). Inter-alia contending that she may be granted compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post. The District Education Officer reconsidered the matter and rejected the claim of the respondent vide order dated 15.10.2020. 3. The said order was again challenged by the respondent in W.P. No.16939/2020 (present matter). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.8.2023. In the said order, the learned Writ Court observed that on the basis of the circular dated 18.4.2017 issued by Commissioner Public Instruction, the earlier order dated 27.7.2020 was passed. The said order was set aside in the earlier round of litigation with specific direction to reconsider the case of the respondent. The authority has again decided the claim of the respondent after considering the very same circular dated 18.4.2017 whereas Clause 5.4 of the policy of State Government dated 29.9.2014 specifically provides that if candidate is not fulfilling the criteria for Class-III post, then he can be given appointment on any Class-IV post. On the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned Writ Court directed the appellant herein to give appointment to the respondent on the post of peon with the District Education Officer, Datia forthwith. 4. Against the order dated 22.8.2023 passed by learned Writ Court, the appellant herein filed the present appeal which was earlier dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2024. The appellant, thereafter, filed R.P. No.270/2025, for recalling the order dated 9.5.2024, which was allowed vide order dated 30.4.2025, whereby the writ appeal was restored on its original number and now matter is for hearing before this Court. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant contended that the husband of the respondent was initially appointed by the Janpad Panchayat as Siksha Karmi Grade-III and subsequently, was absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak in the Adhyapak cadre in the same Janpad Panchayat. In the year, 2018 the State Government made the rules known as MP School Education Service (Teaching Cadre), Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 by which the teaching cadre was constituted consisting of persons appointed under the M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (employment and condition of service) Rules, 2008 and Madhya Pradesh Nagreeya Nikay Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008. First time in the year, 2018 the teaching cadre has been constituted under School Education Department meaning thereby the employees working earlier in the panchayat and Nagariya Nikaay became the employees of State Government i.e. Department of School Education after the constitution of Teaching cadre under the Rules of 2018. The husband of the respondent died in the year, 2015 and at that particular time he was working in the panchayat and was the employee of the Janpad Panchayat, hence the policy dated 29.9.2014 issued by General Administration Department is not applicable because the husband of the petitioner was not the Government Servant whereas her case is covered by the letter dated 18.4.2017 issued by Commissioner Public Instruction which provides compassionate appointment on Samvida Shala Shikshak subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria on compassionate grant of Rs.1 lakh. The said circular does not provide compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post for dependents of Adhyapak Cadre of Janpad Panchayat. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the respondent filed the application for compassionate appointment belatedly after a period of four years from the date of death of her husband. The husband of the respondent died in the year, 2015 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was submitted in the year, 2019, therefore, on the ground of delay also the application was liable to be rejected. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned writ Court and submitted that earlier vide order dated 22.7.2020 her claim was decided on the ground that she is not having requisite qualification for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III and was extended the compassionate grant of Rs.1,00,000/-. At that particular time the claim of the respondent was not rejected on the ground that her husband was not Government servant. The said order was set aside by the learned Writ Court in earlier round of litigation and matter was remanded. After remand for reconsidering of the case also the appellant did not take the plea that husband of the respondent was not the Government servant, therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 29.9.2014. The said order was set aside by the learned Writ Court in earlier round of litigation and matter was remanded. After remand for reconsidering of the case also the appellant did not take the plea that husband of the respondent was not the Government servant, therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 29.9.2014. In the writ appeal, first time they have taken the stand that husband of the petitioner is not the employee of the State Government whereas he was an employee of Janpad Panchayat, therefore, his dependents are not entitled for appointment under the policy dated 29.9.2014. The said action of the appellant is nothing, but a harassment. The appellants are flouting the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court on one ground or another. When the learned Writ Court has set aside the earlier order dated 27.7.2020 and remanded the matter back to the authority to consider the case of the respondent herein for compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post, then the appellant has had no other option, but to consider the case for compassionate appointment on any suitable Class-IV post. The appellants are estopped now from taking the plea that the husband of the respondent was an employee of Janpad Panchayat and not State Government employee, therefore, his dependents are not entitled for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 29.9.2014. The respondents had also relied upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.P. No.1121/2025 (State of M.P. v. Sakshi Singh). In the said Review Petition, the review was sought on the ground that the review application in the present appeal i.e. R.P. No.270/2025 has been entertained and the order passed in the present writ appeal dated 9.5.2024 has been recalled and the Coordinate Bench had held that the policy of the State Government dated 29.9.2014 is endorsed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat and it does not carve out the class of panchayat karmis or the employees of the panchayat to be executed from the domain of its operation in regard to grant of compassionate appointment. Therefore, in view of the same the present appeal is also deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 7. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. Therefore, in view of the same the present appeal is also deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 7. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first issue for consideration is whether the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment can be rejected on the ground of delay. As per the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, the respondent had submitted the application for compassionate appointment belatedly after the period of four years, therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The State cannot be permitted to take said plea at this stage because claim of the respondent was not rejected on the ground of delay, whereas the compassionate grant was granted, therefore, the stand taken by the appellant/State regarding the delay in filing the application is hereby rejected. 9. It is a settled law that compassionate appointment is in exception based relief for dependents of deceased employees. It is not a vested or fundamental right nor a regular mode of recruitment; eligibility arises only if the applicant satisfied the conditions laid down in the policy. In the present case, the question involved is whether Shiksha Karmi Grade-III appointed by Janpad Panchayat, subsequently absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak in Adhyapak Cadre in the same Janpad Panchayat are Government Servant and their dependents are governed by policy of State Government dated 29.9.2014 for compassionate appointment, or not? 10. For considering the said question the relevant provisions are required to be considered. Section 70 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 conferred the power to every panchayat that the panchayat with previous approval of prescribed authority appoint such officers and servants as it considered necessary for efficient discharge of its duties. The qualification, method of recruitment, salaries, leave, allowances and other condition of services including disciplinary matter of such officer and servants shall be such as may be prescribed. 11. Section 95 of the Adhiniyam 1993 conferred the power to the State Government to make the rules. 12. The husband of the respondent was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under "Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997". The Rule 2 (b) of Rules of 1997 defines: "Appointing Authority" in relation to the teacher means the authority specified in column (4) of Schedule-1. 12. The husband of the respondent was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under "Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997". The Rule 2 (b) of Rules of 1997 defines: "Appointing Authority" in relation to the teacher means the authority specified in column (4) of Schedule-1. In the case of husband of the petitioner the appointing authority as per the said schedule was Janpad Panchayat. The Rule 2 (g) of Rules of 1997 defines: "Shiksha Karmi" means a person appointed for teaching by the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, under the Rules of 1997. The Rule 3 of Rules of 1997 prescribe the extent and application of the rules whereby the rules would apply to every Shiksha Karmi appointed/merged by Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case may be, for all the Schools under their control. The Rule 9 of Rules of 1997 provides that discipline and control of Shiksha Karmis Grade-III would be that of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case may be. The General Administration Standing Committee of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be the disciplinary authority for imposing major punishments and the Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat is responsible for issuing minor punishments. Thus, it is evident that nowhere these rules provide for constituting a service under the State Government. A distinct service has been created under the Rules of 1997, which continued in a different form in the name of Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008. 13. The Rules of 1997 subsequently repealed by the Rules of 2008, namely, the M.P. Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008. As per the said rules, the appointing authority in relation to teacher means the authority specified in Column No.4 of Schedule 1 of Rules of 2008. As per Rule 2 (f) of Rules of 2008 "Adhyapak Samvarg" means the person employed or merged by Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat for teaching in the schools under their control. The said rules were extended and applied to every Adhyapak appointed/merged by Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat as the case may be for all the schools under their control. 14. The said rules were extended and applied to every Adhyapak appointed/merged by Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat as the case may be for all the schools under their control. 14. The Shiksha Karmi who were appointed earlier under the Rules of 1997 as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were subsequently merged in the Adhyapak cadre under the Rules of 2008. All the Shiksha Karmis appointed under the Rules of 1997 were appointed by the Janpad Panchayat and they were continued in the services of the Janpad Panchayat and were subsequently absorbed in the Adhyapak cadre in the panchayat itself. Later on, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of M.P. made the rules known as M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018. As per Rule 2(a) of the said rules "Appointing Authority" in respect of the service means the authority as shown in Column No. 6 of Schedule-1. The said rules were made applicable to every member of the service and Rule-4 of the said rules prescribe the "Constitution of Service" whereby the Service shall consist of the persons appointed under the "Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008" and "Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Nikaya Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008", and serving in educational institutions of School Education Department in 224 Community Development Blocks who are appointed under the provisions of Sub Rule-1 of Rule 5. By the commencement of the Rules of 2018 the State Teaching Cadre was constituted and the Adhyapak Samvarg working in the Janpad Panchayat were part of the said Teaching Cadre and became the employees of State Government. 15. Considering all the definitions of the Rules of 1997 as well as of Rules of 2008 leave no iota of doubt that Shiksha Karmi or Adhyapak Samvarg is a category of persons which were made for teachers in the schools under the control of Zila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat they are not under the control of State Government and by no stretch of imagination they can be said to be the Government Servant. One more aspect has to be considered that the State Government is the rule making authority. One more aspect has to be considered that the State Government is the rule making authority. The Rules of 1997 as well as the Rules of 2008 were framed by the State Government exercising power conferred under section 95 r/w section 70 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As the rules were framed by the State Government related with the service condition of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and Adhyapak Samvarg, therefore, whether in such a situation it can be said that the Shiksha Karmi and Adhyapak Samvarg working in the Janpad Panchayat are the Government servant. The said issue was taken into consideration by the Division Bench in the case of Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat Karmachari Sangh, Ratlam and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1992 MPLJ 804 . In para 8 of the said judgment the Division Bench has held as under:- "8.The petitioners have heavily relied on the rules framed in 1976 by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 146(2) of the 1962 Act called "M. P. Janpad Panchayat Karmachari (Eligibility, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976." It was argued on the basis of these rules that they are analogous to the rules framed under section 203 of the Gujarat Act. A perusal of the rules would not bear out this contention. Merely because an Act gives power to the State Government to prescribe the conditions of service of employees of a Panchayat constituted under the Act, the servants covered by such rules do not become servants of the Government. Government is only a rule making authority in such a case. A perusal of the rules would show that they are meant for application to the employees of a Janpad Panchayat. Merely because such rules have been framed, it cannot be said that those who are governed in the matter of conditions of service by such rules become servants of the rule making authority." 16. As the husband of the petitioner was appointed by the Janpad Panchayat and had worked in the Janpad Panchayat only, therefore, he cannot be treated as a Government Servant. The policy dated 29.9.2014 has been framed for the compassionate appointment of the dependents of the Government Servant. As the husband of the petitioner was appointed by the Janpad Panchayat and had worked in the Janpad Panchayat only, therefore, he cannot be treated as a Government Servant. The policy dated 29.9.2014 has been framed for the compassionate appointment of the dependents of the Government Servant. The said policy is exclusively for the dependents of the employees of the State Government and not for the dependents of the employees of Janpad Panchayat. The fact that the policy dated 29.9.2014 not applicable in the case of dependents of employees of Janpad Panchayat, has completely lost sight from the beginning. In two round of litigation before the learned Writ Court, the State Government did not take the plea that the policy dated 29.9.2014 is not applicable in the present case. First time at the writ appellate stage, the State Government has taken the plea that the husband of the respondent was not an employee of State Government, therefore, her case could not be considered in the light of the said policy. As the compassionate appointment is not a vested or fundamental right nor a regular mode of recruitment and the same is governed by the policy framed in this regard. If the policy is not applicable, no right is accrued, at the strength of order ignoring the relevant provisions of the policy. 17. The dependents of Adhyapak worked in Janpad Panchayat were governed by altogether different scheme. There is a letter issued by the Director, Public Instructions dated 6.8.2015 which provides that the dependents of the employees working in Adhyapak cadre would not be entitled for compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III or on the post of peon. The letter dated 18.4.2017 was issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions which provide the compassionate appointment to the dependents of the employees working as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III subject to fulfilling eligibility criteria. In view of the said instruction issued by Commissioner, Public Instruction the dependents of Adhyapak Samvarg are entitled for compassionate appointment only on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak subject to fulfillment of eligibility. Before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.P. No.1121/2025 facts were different and distinguishable. Before the Division Bench issue that whether the Shiksha Karmi were appointed in Janpad Panchayat and absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak are Government servant or not was not under consideration. Before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.P. No.1121/2025 facts were different and distinguishable. Before the Division Bench issue that whether the Shiksha Karmi were appointed in Janpad Panchayat and absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak are Government servant or not was not under consideration. On the basis of the above analysis the directions issued by learned Writ Court to office of District Education Officer are not in accordance with the policy, same are hereby set aside. The respondent has already been granted compassionate grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of letter dated 18.4.2017 issued by Commissioner, Public Instruction. As the respondent is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, therefore, now she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 18. In view of the above, the instant petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 22.8.2023 passed in W.P. No.16939/2020, is hereby set aside.