Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhatrapal Adivasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39734
1 WP-7932-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7932 of 2018
CHHATRAPAL ADIVASI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri K.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order
Annexure P-6 whereby the application for compassionate appointment
submitted by the Petitioner on 13.01.2017 has been rejected on the ground
that brother of the Petitioner is already in Government employment and
therefore, as per clause 4.1 of the Policy for Compassionate appointment, the
Petitioner is not entitled to be granted compassionate appointment. The
relevant clause of the policy is as under:-
" दवंगत शासक य सेवक के प रवार का कोई भी सद य य द पूव से शासक य
सेवा अथवा िनगम, मंडल, प रषद, आयोग आ द म िनयिमत सेवा मे िनयो जत हो,
(आवेदक के प रवार का कोई सद य िनयिमत सेवा म िनयो जत न होने का शपथ
प तुत करना होगा ) ।"
2. The Father of the Petitioner expired on 23.11.2016 and the
Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 13.01.2017 whereas the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39734
2 WP-7932-2018
brother of Petitioner got selected as Constable in M.P. Police on 01.02.2017
and consequently appointment Order was issued on 22.03.2017 as is evident
from Annexure P-8.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that on the date of
application as well as on date of death of deceased employee, the brother of
Petitioner was not in Government service. However, clause 4.1 is a
disqualification clause and if a candidate earns disqualification, then the
said disqualification can be seen even till the date of appointment. In such
case, the employer cannot appoint a person who has earned disqualification
to be appointed.
4. However, the respondents have mechanically rejected the
application of the Petitioner on the ground that the brother of the Petitioner is
in Government employment. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 13/2020 (Neha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) has held as
under:-
"On considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we
are of the considered view that an appropriate interference is
called for. Undisputedly, the brother of the petitioner has secured
an employment on 30.08.2017 i.e. one and a half months after the
death of their father. Undisputedly, the said appointment is not
based on compassionate ground. It is an appointment which the
brother of writ-petitioner has earned on his own merit. Therefore,
a question would arise whether the petitioner namely the daughter
of the deceased was staying with her brother and whether the
brother was taking care of her or not and other related issues. In
case a situation would arise whether the petitioner is not staying
with her brother then the question of penury would have to be
considered by the authorities. Therefore, these are matters of facts
which can only be brought about after an appropriate inquiry is
held. Merely, rejecting the plea of the writ petitioner on the ground
that her brother is in employment, in our considered view, may not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39734
3 WP-7932-2018
be correct. Therefore, we hereby direct the respondents to conduct
an inquiry with regard to penury of the petitioner and as to
whether her brother who had secured the employment is taking
care of the family or not and other related issues. It is only when
such an inquiry is held, the respondents would reconsider the case
of the appellant/writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate
ground."
5. Therefore, it was obligatory for the respondents to have examined
whether the brother of Petitioner is supporting the family and whether
despite the brother of the petitioner being in Government Service, he is still
in need of compassionate appointment and the financial condition of the
family can be stated to be still penurious. All these facts were required to be
scrutinized by the respondents.
6. Therefore, the rejection Order Annexure P-6 is set aside. The
respondents are directed to cause enquiry as per the aforesaid judgment of
the Division Bench. The enquiry shall be carried out as per the financial
position of the family as on 22.02.2018 which is the date of rejection of the
application for compassionate appointment and as an outcome of the said
enquiry, appropriate action shall be taken.
7. Let the exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the
date of production of certified copy of this Order.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
