Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
1 WP-721-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 721 of 2020
AMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kumar Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed calling into question the order
Annex.P/1, whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected.
2. The undisputed facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner
expired on 28/01/2007. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate
appointment for the first time in the year 2015, which has been rejected on
the ground that the application has been filed many years after the death of
the Government Servant and beyond the time limit prescribed in the policy
for compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was
minor at the time of death of his father and he acquired age of majority on
04/07/2012, his date of birth being 04/07/1994. Therefore, he filed the
application for compassionate appointment in the year 2015. It was further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
2 WP-721-2020
contended that the delay in compassionate appointment was on account of
the fact that the petitioner belongs to an illiterate family and he was not
aware of his rights.
4. Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and on perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that
the father of petitioner expired in the year 2012. As per policy for
compassionate appointment, Clause 3.2 provides that in cases where the first
child of the Government servant is minor on the date of death of
Government servant then application for compassionate appointment will be
considered as and when it is filed within one year of the first child attaining
the age of majority.
5. In the present case, the petitioner is not the first child of the
deceased Government Servant. As per his own application, he has two elder
sisters aged 37 and 40 years as on 2012 and one elder brother aged 25 years
as on 2012. Therefore, these three children of the deceased Government
servant must have been major on the date of death of deceased Government
servant. The same reason has been mentioned in the impugned order that the
eldest son of the deceased Government servant was major at the time of
death of father of petitioner. It is not disputed that usual time limit for
seeking compassionate appointment is 7 years. The application of the
petitioner was filed admittedly beyond the period of 7 years and no other
dependent or family member of the deceased Government servant filed
application for compassionate appointment within 7 years of his death.
6. Petitioner is educated person and his mother expired in the year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
3 WP-721-2020
2012 i.e. 5 years after death of his father. He must be fully aware of his
rights to get compassionate appointment as his mother is must be getting
family pension and he being below 25 years of age must also have received
family pension till attaining the age of 25 years.
7. Even the present petition is filed with much delay in the year 2020,
which is 5 years after the date of rejection order being passed on 15/12/2015.
The reason for delay assigned is that after death of his mother in the year
2012, he had filed succession case. Copy of order of succession Court is
placed on record as Annex.P/4. The said proceedings have been finalized
with consent of all legal representatives without any contest on 22/11/2013
itself, which is prior to date of rejection order. Therefore, the contention that
since succession case was filed, therefore, the impugned order could not be
challenged, is utterly misconceived.
8. It is settled in law that policy for compassionate appointment
deserves a strict construction because it reduces the chances of eligible
persons available in open market.
9. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
others vs. Amit Shrivas reported in 2020 (10) SCC 496 has held as under:-
23. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassion
appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank & Ors. v.
Promila & Anr.4 We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, & 5 as
under:
"3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable
and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of
the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the
High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a
subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the
legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in
Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 ,
qua what would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
4 WP-721-2020
4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial
pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is
not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that 4
(2020) 2 SCC 729 there is no inherent right to seek compassionate
appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succor to
the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage
of time when the employee passes away.
5. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim
for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular
year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came
into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been
emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the
grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot
be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance.
The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to
what are the provisions made in the scheme for such
compassionate appointment."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Canara Bank
Vs. Ajithkumar G. K. in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025 (arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.30532/2019) vide judgment dated 11.2.2025 reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 290 had an occasion to deal with the cases of compassionate
ground and framed certain guidelines considering all the previous case law
which are as under :-
"11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on
compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to
consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized
through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential
but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on
humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the
matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of
India v. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of
rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v.
Krishna Devi (2002) 10 SCC 246].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two
contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to
meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
5 WP-721-2020
death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in
service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 730].
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an
employer being intended to enable the family members of a
deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden
financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be
made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma
Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a
side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009) 11 SCC 453].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and
the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all
aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19].
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of
inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar
(2009) 13 SCC 600].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to
be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to
achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India (2011) 4
SCC 209].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence
of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the
sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and
any appointment without considering the financial condition of the
family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India
v. Amrita Sinha (2021) 20 SCC 695].
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made
immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a
reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn
that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in
immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not
being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any
time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time
and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil
Badyakar (2009) 13 SCC 112].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a
member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a
post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate
employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial
condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate
appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally
impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
6 WP-721-2020
(1994) 4 SCC 138].
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the
first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of
compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the
need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial
destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it
would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of
the employee who died while in service which would directly be
in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore
(2011) 13 SCC 131].
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for
endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi
(2007) 6 SCC 162].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial
distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may
assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent
must fulfill the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State
of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the
applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there
are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2000) 7 SCC 192].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot
be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also,
it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for
compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent
who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be
considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara
Bank (supra)].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years
after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due
consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent
of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in
conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National
Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 481].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see
Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh (1998) 5
SCC 452].
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased
employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the
family of the deceased is left in penury.
The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very
well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
7 WP-721-2020
(2004) 7 SCC 271].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee,
allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the
object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an
eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in-
harness would claim employment as if public employment is
heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami 32, Union
Bank of India M. T. Latheesh33, National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation v. Nank Chand34 and Punjab National Bank v.
Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265].
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income
including the family pension and income of family from other
sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration
by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury.
[see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under
Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in
her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme
cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment.
[see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL (2000) 6 SCC 493]
w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which
dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts
of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a
decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of
bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision
making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic
consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha
Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718].
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the
statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does
not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions
[see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571].
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on
compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148].
It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the
decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two
Judges."
11. Consequently, no grounds were made out to interfere in the matter.
The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29333
8 WP-721-2020
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
