Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12042
1 WP-19561-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19561 of 2021
RAGHVENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Romesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for direction to the
respondents to provide her compassionate appointment on a suitable post. This
Court earlier issued notices to the respondents. However, reply has not been filed
till date.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this case are that the petitioner's father
Jitendra Singh was employed as Lower Division Clerk and was appointed on
15.01.1992. It is the case of the petitioner that he went missing in the year 1992
itself. From the document filed along with the writ petition, it is gathered that vide
order dated 03.07.1992, the services of the petitioner's father were dispensed with.
It is further found that in the year 2009, legal heirs of Jitendra Singh filed a civil
suit, which was decided by judgment dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), whereby
Jitendra Singh was declared dead. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
for grant of compassionate appointment, which has been rejected by the
respondents vide order dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure P-7). The application has
been rejected on the ground that since the services of the petitioner's father were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12042
2 WP-19561-2021
already dispensed with in the year 1992, she is not entitled to claim compassionate
appointment.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is only after
declaration that her father is dead, the petitioner could file the application
for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted by him that since the
petitioner's father was missing right from 1992, the action of respondents in
dispensing with his services vide order dated 03.07.1992 is also illegal. He,
therefore, submits that the rejection of application for grant of compassionate
appointment vide order dated 26.02.2011 is illegal and suitable direction needs to
be issued to the respondents for reconsideration of her application.
4. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner's father was absent from
duty and as a result of which, his services were dispensed with vide order dated
03.07.1992. Thus, when the petitioner made the application for grant of
compassionate appointment, her father was not in employment. The subsisting
employment is a condition precedent for grant of compassionate appointment. She
is, therefore, rightly not found entitled to claim compassionate appointment.
Needless to mention that the order dated 03.07.1992 has not been challenged and
has thus attained finality.
5. Another important aspect to be taken into account in this case is lapse of
more than 33 years from the alleged date of missing of petitioner's father. The
Apex Court in the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
reported in 2006 (5) SCC 766 held that the object of grant of compassionate
appointment is immediate support to the family of the deceased employee, so that,
the family is able to survive. The fact that the family has survived for more than
33 years shows that the benefit of compassionate appointment is not warranted in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12042
3 WP-19561-2021
the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in para -11 held as under :
"11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High
Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had
sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger
issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the
general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public
sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward
to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article
14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an
appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should
not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such
as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering
because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread
earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no
necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show
favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
6. In view of the discussion made above, the action of the respondents in
rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment
cannot be said to be illegal. The order dated 26.02.2011 is accordingly upheld.
7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
