Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
1 WP-7164-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7164 of 2013
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satendra Kumar Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Reji Mathai - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking
appointment on compassionate basis due to untimely death of his father-Late
Shri Vansh Gopal Tiwari on 5/7/2001 while he was in service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the
petitioner was appointed on a vacant and sanctioned post of Driver in Excise
Department and was also regularized on the same post, who died on 5/7/2001
while in service. He submits that on 26/9/2001 (Annexure P/3) petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment and vide letter dated 11/8/2006
(Annexure P/4) issued by Excise Commissioner, State of M.P., Gwalior
addressed to the Collector, District Rewa, the petitioner was found entitled
for appointment on compassionate basis, but later on, vide letter dated
28/5/2009 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was informed that there being no
vacant post of unreserved category, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac
Only) has been sanctioned to be paid to the petitioner in lieu of appointment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
2 WP-7164-2013
on compassionate basis and he was also directed to submit his consent for
the same, which was refused by the petitioner vide letter dated 29/6/2009
(Annexure P/6) with the further request to grant appointment on
compassionate basis. Learned counsel submits that thereafter again the
petitioner made several representations for granting compassionate
appointment to the petitioner, but of no avail. Hence, the instant petition was
filed.
3. With the support of return, learned counsel for the respondents/State
submits that the father of the petitioner, who though died while in service,
was not a regular employee and in fact, he was regularized under the Work
Charged Contingency Establishment and in support of his contention, placed
reliance on a letter dated 19/12/2006 (Annexure R/1) showing that the
petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his father was
under employment of Work Charged Contingency Establishment. With these
submissions, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, father of the petitioner had died during service on
5/7/2001 and according to the case of the petitioner, his father was appointed
on a vacant and sanctioned post of Driver in Excise Department and was also
regularized on the same post. Although by way of letter dated 19/12/2006,
the respondents have tried to say that the father of the petitioner being an
employee under the Work Charged Contingency Establishment, he is not
entitled for compassionate appointment, but no reply in respect of the letter
dated 11/8/2006 (Annexure P/4) has been given, whereby holding the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
3 WP-7164-2013
petitioner to be entitled for compassionate appointment, his case was
forwarded for appointment specifically mentioning that as the post of Peon is
not vacant in the department, therefore, petitioner be given appointment on
compassionate basis in any other department as per the circular dated
1/5/2000 issued by the State of M.P., General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. In the entire return, the respondents
have not stated that there is no vacant post of Peon in any other department
of State of M.P. and further that no post of Peon had fallen vacant in the
Excise Department after issuance of letter dated 11/8/2006 (Annexure P/4),
whereby the petitioner was held entitled to be appointed on compassionate
basis.
6. The father of the petitioner died on 5/7/2001 while he was in service
and when the petitioner became major, on his application, petitioner's case
was considered for appointment on compassionate basis and vide letter dated
11/8/2006 (Annexure P/4) issued by Excise Commissioner, State of M.P.,
Gwalior, he was held to be entitled for appointment on compassionate basis
and thus, this is the most deserving case in which the petitioner, whose father
died while in service, ought to have been given appointment on
compassionate basis immediately when the petitioner became major, but
instead of giving compassionate appointment, the petitioner was offered
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) in lieu thereof, which was specifically
refused by the petitioner. The State Government framed the policy to support
the dependent(s) of the deceased employee, who dies in harness without
leaving any source of income for the family. Technicalities should not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
4 WP-7164-2013
prevail to deny the genuine claim for compassionate appointment, rather the
application for compassionate appointment should be considered by showing
compassion, which is the soul of the policy and real intention of the State
Government. But, in the present case, although the petitioner was found
entitled for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 11/8/2006
(Annexure P/4) issued by Excise Commissioner, State of M.P., Gwalior, but
later on, he was denied the appointment on compassionate basis by offering
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) in lieu thereof, which was specifically
refused by the petitioner.
7. The Apex court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri
Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327 has held as under:-
"7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the
general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour
of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his
family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to
one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for
such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post
held by the deceased."
8. Again in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 684 the Apex court has observed as under:-
"15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons
stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds
under the 1990 Rules as per his original application
made in July, 2010 and if he is otherwise found eligible
to appoint him on the post of Junior Clerk. The
aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
four weeks from today. However, it is observed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
5 WP-7164-2013
appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the
date of his appointment only. The present appeal is
accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
16. Before parting with the present order, we are
constrained to observe that considering the object and
purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e.,
a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a
position of financial hardship upon the untimely death
of the employee while in service and the basis or policy
is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the
family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely
death, the authorities must consider and decide such
applications for appointment on compassionate grounds
as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not
beyond a period of six months from the date of
submission of such completed applications.
17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have
found that in several cases, applications for appointment
on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and
are kept pending for years together. As a result, the
applicants in several cases have to approach the
concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for
the consideration of their applications. Even after such a
direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are
given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the
applicants have to challenge the order of rejection
before the High Court which leads to pendency of
litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the
employee who died in harness in the lurch and in
financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to
the authorities and on irrelevant considerations,
applications made for compassionate appointment are
rejected. After several years or are not considered at all
as in the instant case.
18. If the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant
policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just
and necessary that such applications are considered well
in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across
cases where for nearly two decades the controversy
regarding the application made for compassionate
appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to
the frustration of the very policy of granting
compassionate appointment on the death of the
employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed
that such applications must be considered at an earliest
point of time. The consideration must be fair,
reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The
application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23635
6 WP-7164-2013
and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then
and then only the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds can be achieved."
9. In view of the foregoing discussions, this petition deserves to be and
is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon either in the Excise
Department itself or in any other department of the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Let the whole exercise be completed within a period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
