Madhya Pradesh High Court
General Administration Department vs Vaibhav Kuvadiya on 20 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14853
1 WA-698-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 698 of 2019
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Versus
VAIBHAV KUVADIYA
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants / State.
None for the respondent / writ petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others have filed the present writ
appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated
16.11.2018 passed by the Writ Court, whereby W.P. No.4233 of 2018 filed
by the respondent / writ petitioner has been allowed with a direction to the
appellants to consider his case for grant of compassionate appointment.
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. Father of the writ petitioner late Ishwarlal Kuvadiya was
working in the Work Charged & Contingency Paid Establishment of School
Education Department. He died on 13.07.2016 while in service. After the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14853
2 WA-698-2019
death, being an unemployed dependent, the writ petitioner filed an
application for grant of compassionate appointment under the Policy dated
29.09.2014 and clarification / amendment in the Policy dated 31.08.2016.
2.2. Vide order dated 31.03.2017, the District Education Officer has
rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the death of his
father took place on 13.07.2016 and as per the Police dated 29.09.2014, he is
entitled for only ex gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, writ petitioner preferred
a writ petition before the Writ Court on the ground that the Compassionate
Policy dated 29.09.2014 came to be amended on 31.08.2016, by which in
place of ex gratia payment, the provisions of compassionate appointment had
been inserted for one of the dependent of deceased employee worked in
Work Charged Contingency Paid Establishment.
2.4. The writ petition was opposed by filing a reply. Vide order
dated 16.11.2018, the writ petition has been allowed by directing the
respondents therein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of
appointment on compassionate basis on merit and pass a reasoned order. The
Writ Court held that the there is no substitution of the policy, but amendment
to the original policy as evident from revised circular / policy dated
31.08.2016. Hence, the present writ appeal is before this Court.
03. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants / State submits that at the time of death i.e. 13.07.2016, the Policy
dated 29.09.2014 was in vogue, therefore, in view of the settled law by the
Apex Court in catena of judgments, the claim of the writ petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14853
3 WA-698-2019
rightly been considered under the prevailing policy.
Heard.
04. Admittedly, the father of the writ petitioner died while working
as permanent employee in Work Charged Contingency Paid Establishment.
The State Government came up with a Policy dated 29.09.2014 for grant of
compassionate appointment to one of the dependent of Government
employee. For for the dependent of Work Charged Contingency Paid
Establishment employee, as per Clause - 11.1., the provision for one time
payment of Rs.2,00,000/- along with other benefits was made. Clause - 11.1
is reproduced below:-
''11.1 कायभा रत/आक मकता िनिध से वेतन पाने वाले दै िनक
वेतनभोगी कमचा रय के दवंगत होने पर अनुकंपा िनयु क पा ता
नह ं होगी पर तु उनके प रवार के आि त नामां कत सद य को एकमु त
पये 2.00 लाख ( पये दो लाख) क रािश अनुकंपा अनुदान के नाम से
द जाएगी। उसम े यूट क रािश स मिलत नह होगी। इस रािश का
भुगतान संबंिधत वभाग के कायभा रत/आक मकता के मद के अंतगत
वेतन मद से कया जावेगा।''
05. Later on, the State Government vide order 31.08.2016 has
decided to grant compassionate appointment to the dependent of the
employee died while working in Work Charged & Contingency Paid
Establishment under existing Policy dated 29.09.2014. Paragraph - 2 of the
amended policy is reproduced below:-
''2. रा य शासन ारा िनणय िलया गया है क कायभा रत एवं
आक मकता िनिध से वेतन पाने वाले सेवा के मृतक कमचा रय के
आि त के िलए अनुक पा िनयु का ावधान व मान यवसथा
अनुसार कया जाए। अत: सामा य शांसन वभाग के प रप दनांक
29.09.2014 म जा र दशा-िनदश के मापद ड के अनु प ह कायभा रत
एवं आक मकता िनिध सेवा से वेतन पाने वाले कमचा रय के दवगंत
होने पर उनके आि त को इसी सेवा क थापना से र पद पर
अनुकंपा िनयु दए जाने क कायवाई सुिन त क जाये।''
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14853
4 WA-698-2019
06. Therefore, the order / circular dated 31.08.2016 is not a new
policy but an amendment in the existing Policy dated 29.09.2014. The
amendment is beneficial in nature, therefore, it cannot be said to be
prospective in nature. By this amendment, the provision has been made for
grant of compassionate appointment in place of one time payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- under the same terms and conditions.
07. In a tax matter, the Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of
M/s Suraj Impex (India) Private Limited v/s Union of India & Others
reported in 2025 INSC 755 has considered the effect of Circular dated
17.09.2010 granting benefits to the exporters who were being denied 1%
drawback of the custom portion under prevision Notification. The Apex
Court has held that the Circular does not vest any fresh right on merchant
export and cost upon any burden on the Department except the one already
cast upon them vide prevision Notification. The concerned Circular dated
17.09.2010 vis-a-vis the previous Notification, no new right or benefit came
to be created, but the actual scope of the benefit accruing to the appellant and
other similarly placed place merchant exporters, as explained and settled
once for all.
08. In the present case, the Policy dated 29.09.2014 is still in force
and only Clause - 11.1 has been amended by order dated 31.08.2016 which is
also beneficial in nature. When the State Government is showing so much
compassion for the dependent of the deceased employee, the similar
compassion has been extended to the dependent of the employee, who
worked more than 20 - 30 years in Work Charged Contingency Paid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14853
5 WA-698-2019
Establishment. Although they have been working in Contingency Paid
Establishment, but doing the work of the State Government and paid from
the State Exchequer. Therefore, discrimination in the Policy dated
29.09.2014 has been removed by amendment dated 31.08.2016. Hence, the
Writ Court has not committed any while allowing the writ petition. No case
for interference is made out.
09. In view of the above, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
