Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purushottam Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
1 WP-16446-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16446 of 2021
PURUSHOTTAM KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24/3/2021 (Annexure P/1),
whereby, his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been
rejected by the respondents on the ground that on the date of death of
deceased-employee, there was no provision for grant of compassionate
appointment to the dependent of employee of work charged and contingency
paid establishment.
2. Petitioner's father late Shri Mansingh Kushwaha was working as
Time Keeper in the Public Health and Engineering Department and was
posted in the office of respondent no. 2. He died in harness on 21/10/2015.
The date of birth of petitioner is 3/6/1998 and since on the date of death of
his father, he was minor, the application could not be filed immediately after
the death. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 3/6/2016 and
thereafter, when the petitioner acquire the graduation qualification, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
2 WP-16446-2021
submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 1/3/2020. This
application has been rejected by the respondent/authority vide impugned
order dated 24/3/2021 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that when petitioner's
father expired on 21/10/2015, the policy for grant of compassionate
appointment was not applicable on the dependents of employees of work
charged and contingency paid establishment. Therefore, he has been held not
entitled for compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide notification
dated 31/8/2016 (Annexure P/8), the policy issued vide circular dated
29/9/2014 has been made applicable to the dependents of employees of work
charged and contingency paid establishment also. He further submitted that
issue of applicability of the policy dated 29/9/2014 in case of death prior to
31/8/2016 has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. Sonu Jatav (W.A.No. 601/2019 ), wherein, the
Division Bench has held that the policy would be applicable in such cases
also. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the orders
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Gurjar
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P.No. 19739/2019) and Devesh Chaturvedi Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P.No. 6441/2023).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that on
the date of death of petitioner's father, since there was no policy for grant of
compassionate appointment, petitioner would not be entitled to benefit on the
basis of the policy which was subsequently made applicable. He further
submitted that petitioner attained the age of majority on 3/6/2016 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
3 WP-16446-2021
therefore, as per Clause 3.2 of the Policy, he was required to make the
application within one year of attaining the age of majority. He submitted
that since the application itself was made on 1/3/2021, the application was
found not entertainable under Clause 3.2 of the Policy. Learned counsel for
the State placed reliance upon the order passed by Division Bench of this
Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Rajak
(W.A.No. 154/2025).
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, petitioner's father was working in work charged and
contingency paid establishment and he expired on 21/10/2015. Thus, on the
date of death, the policy for grant of compassionate appointment was not
applicable and the dependent of deceased-employee was only entitled to an
ex gratia amount of Rs. 2 lacs. Subsequently, vide notification dated
31/8/2016 (Annexure P/8), the Govt. applied the policy dated 29/9/2014 in
the cases of employees of work charged and contingency paid establishment
also. The issue is therefore as to whether, the policy which is made
applicable vide notification dated 31/8/2016, would apply in the facts of
present case or not ?
7. So far as the Division Bench decision in the case of Sonu Jatav
(supra) is concerned, the matter travelled up to the Apex Court in SLP (C)
No. 29038/2019 and the Apex Court vide order dated 9/12/2019 had
dismissed the SLP observing that the question of law is kept open. Meaning
thereby, the order passed by the Division Bench would not be binding
precedent. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
4 WP-16446-2021
Kumar Rajak (supra) has considered the similar issue and after referring to
the orders passed in the case of Manoj Gurjar (supra) as also in the case of
Sonu Jatav (supra) has held that the policy dated 29/9/2014 would not be
applicable in the cases of death prior to 31/8/2016. The Division Bench in
para 10 to 14 of aforesaid decision observed as under:-
"10. We may note that prior to 2014, there was a policy dated
18.08.2008 which had provided for compensation to be granted of
a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh which was increased by the 2014 Policy to a
sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Thereafter, benefit was changed from
compensation to compassionate appointment by the policy dated
31.08.2016. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496, where the case of an employee
covered by the policy dated 18.08.2008 was being considered. The
Supreme Court also referred to a circular dated 21.03.2017 issued
by the State Government which clarified that the compassionate
appointment for employees of work charge in contingency fund
was enforced w.e.f. 31.08.2016 and prior cases were only eligible
for "compassionate grant" and not for "compassionate
appointment".
11. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashish
Awasthi (surpa) and Amit Shrivas (supra), it is clear that the
policy in force on the date of death of father of the respondent
would be applicable and said policy was the 2014 policy. Thus
case of respondent could only be considered under the 2014
Policy, irrespective of date when the application is filed. We find
no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for respondent that
the relevant date would be the date on which the application is
filed and not the date of death. In the present case the application
for grant of compassionate appointment has been filed after the
2016 Policy came into force.
12. In our view, said application with relate back to the date of
death of the father of the respondent, which is the date which gives
rise to a cause of action to file such an application. It will be
immaterial as to the date when the application is filed. We may
also note that in case such an argument was to be accepted
accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation in as much as
the family of a deceased employee in immediate need of help and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
5 WP-16446-2021
immediately applies for grant of compassionate benefit being
covered by the earlier policy would only get monetary
compensation and and the family of a deceased employee which is
not in immediate need and can wait like in the present case to
submit an application after a gap of about a year, would get higher
benefit of compassionate appointment. This can certainly not be
the intention of the legislature.
13. Furthermore, reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on
the judgment of Manoj Gurjar (supra) is also misplaced. For the
reason that in Manoj Gurjar (supra) after considering the
difference of opinion between two division benches makes a
reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashish Awasthi
(supra) but without considering the ratio of the judgment in Ashish
Awasthi (supra) simply held that the amended policy would be
applicable.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024
is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. The decision of the
appellants in denying the respondent compassionate appointment
is consequently, upheld."
8. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Rajak (supra) , the impugned order passed by the respondents
on 24/3/2021 cannot be said to be illegal or otherwise unsustainable in law.
The same is accordingly upheld. Prior to 31/8/2016, the dependents of
employee under work charged and contingency paid establishment were held
entitled to Rs. 2 lacs towards ex gratia amount. This was in fact offered to
the petitioner also as is evident from office order dated 21/4/2023 (Annexure
R/1). However, the petitioner has not accepted the same anticipating
favourable decision in the matter.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is
dismissed so far as the challenge to order dated 24/3/2021 is concerned.
However, respondents are directed to extend the benefit of ex gratia amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16505
6 WP-16446-2021
pursuant to the office order dated 21/4/2022 to the petitioner.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
