Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
1 WP-25267-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 25267 of 2023
RAHUL SINGH PARMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated
15.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner's request for grant of
compassionate appointment has been rejected by virtue of Clause 4.1 of
policy, dated 29.09.2014.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner's
father, late Shri Shiromani Singh Parmar, as working as Officiating Head
Constable in 29th Battalion, SAF, Datia. He expired on 01.02.2022 while in
service. After his death, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate
appointment on 17.01.2023 (Annexure P/6). This application has been
rejected by impugned order, dated 15.09.2023.
3 . The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been denied the benefit of compassionate appointment by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
2 WP-25267-2023
invoking Clause 4.1 of the policy, dated 29.09.2024, on ground that her
sister is already in the Government employment. He submitted that the
petitioner's sister has already married on 09.12.2022 and, therefore, she
cannot be considered to be a member of family of the deceased-father and,
therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the policy are not attracted. He
submitted that the petitioner's sister once married, is not expected to take care
of the dependents of family of the father. He thus submitted that the
impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set-aside. The
learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. Vs.
Somyashree reported in (2021)12 SCC 20 as also in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Premlata reported in (2022)1 SCC 30.
4. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned
order and submitted that on the date of death, the petitioner's sister was not
married and was in Government employment holding the post of Sub-
inspector in the Police Department. He submitted that the marriage of the
sister took place much after the death of the employee on 09.12.2022.
Therefore, on the date of death of the employee, the petitioner's sister since
was in Government employment, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of
compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the petitioner herself
is married and is not eligible to be considered for compassionate
appointment. The respondents' counsel also submitted that the petitioner
herself was aged about 30 years on the date of rejection of the application
who shows that she is self dependent and does not warrant compassionate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
3 WP-25267-2023
appointment.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father expired on 01.02.2022.
The petitioner has also not disputed that on the date of death of petitioner's
father her sister namely, Ragini Parmar, was working as Sub-inspector in the
Police Department. Thus, on the date of death of her father, the petitioner
was not eligible for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment in
view of Clause 4.1 of policy, dated 29.09.2014. This issue has been
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prajesh
Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2016(3) MPLJ 88 wherein,
the Division Bench held as under;
"31. The foremost factor for consideration for appointment
on compassionate ground, therefore, is to protect the family
in question from penury on the death of sole bread earner. It
is in the light of this aspect Clause 4.1 is to be understood. It
states that in case any eligible member of the deceased family
is in Government service, he will not be entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground. Apparently, the
Clause is loosely drafted. If a family member at best residing
separately is already in employment in Government service,
there is no need for him to file an application for
appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of death of
father, mother or brother, as the case may be. The need arises
only when "no one in the family" is in employment of the
State or instrumentality of the State and there is sudden death
of the sole bread earner.
32. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the
interpretation given to Clause 4.1 of the Policy for
compassionate appointment in Ku. Priyanka Dixit (supra)
and Prakash Parmar (supra) and hold that where in a family
of deceased Government servant, any of the member eligible
for compassionate appointment is in the employment in
government service or corporation, board, council,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
4 WP-25267-2023
commission etc., any other member of the family, though
eligible, will not be entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground."
7. Thus, if the petitioner's sister was not married, the petitioner was not
eligible for compassionate appointment by virtue of Clause 4.1 of the policy.
Thus, the issue for consideration is as to whether after the marriage of her
sister, the petitioner because eligible for consideration under the policy for
compassionate appointment. Further, a candidate who was not eligible for
consideration under the policy on the date of death of employee, would not
attain eligibility because of any subsequent event. Meaning thereby, the
eligibility of a candidate for grant of compassionate appointment is required
to be seen as on the date of death of employee unless any exception is carved
out in the policy itself.
8 . The petitioner's sister entered into marriage on 09.12.2022.
Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner submitted her application for
compassionate appointment of 17.01.2023. The submission of petitioner's
counsel that the petitioner cannot be deprived of compassionate appointment
on the ground that her sister is already in the Government employment. This
argument is primarily based upon the fact that after the marriage of sister, she
is no more the member of family of her father and is not expected to
maintain the dependents of her father. The aforesaid argument is required to
be tested in view of Full Bench judgment rendered in the case of Meenakshi
Dubey Vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. &
Ors. reported in 2020(1) MPLJ 657. It was a case where under Clause 2.2 of
the same policy, a married daughter was excluded from being considered for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
5 WP-25267-2023
compassionate appointment. After referring to judgments of various High
Courts, the Full Bench has held in paragraph 13 as under;
"13. xxx xxx xxx
The common string in the aforesaid judgments of various
High Courts is clear like a cloudless sky that the
action/clauses of the policy which deprives married daughter
from right of consideration for compassionate appointment
runs contrary to Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39(a) of the
Constitution. We concur with the above view taken by
various High Courts."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs.
Kashirao Rajaram Sawai reported in (1987)2 SCC 278 opined that a daughter
after her marriage does not cease to be the daughter of her father or mother.
The Apex Court was considering the provisions of Section 125(1)(d) of
Cr.P.C. It held thus:
"12. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant
that a married daughter has no obligation to maintain her
parents even if they are unable to maintain themselves. It has
been rightly pointed out by the High Court that a daughter
after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of the
father or mother. It has been earlier noticed that it is the
moral obligation of the children to maintain their parents. In
case the contention of the appellant that the daughter has no
liability whatsoever to maintain her parents is accepted,
parents having no son but only daughters and unable to
maintain themselves, would go destitute, if the daughters
even though they have sufficient means refuse to maintain
their parents.
13. After giving our best consideration to the question, we
are of the view that section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability
on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or
mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself."
10. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Savita Samvedi (Ms) & Anr.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
6 WP-25267-2023
Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1996(2) SCC 380 quoted a common
saying "a son is a son until he gets a wife, a daughter is a daughter
throughout her life."
11 . Thus, it has been a consistent view of Courts that there is no
difference between a son or a daughter and a married and unmarried
daughter. When a married daughter is considered to be eligible for grant of
compassionate appointment, she cannot be accepted to be a member of other
family when it comes to sharing liability. Further, when a married son is
expected to take care of family after the death of father, the same expectation
is with the married daughter also.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid pronouncements of Apex Court and
Full Bench, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that
after the marriage of petitioner's sister, she is no more member of this family
and is not expected to maintain the family, is not acceptable.
13. The matter can be examined from another angle. Under the policy
a married daughter is equally eligible for consideration for compassionate
appointment like a married son. Therefore, when it comes to managing the
family of the deceased-employee, the argument that a married daughter is not
supposed to maintain the family, cannot be entertained. If the equality is to
be maintained while conferring certain benefit, the same is required to be
maintained when it comes to sharing the liability.
14. It is seen that the petitioner herself is a married daughter of the
deceased employee. Therefore, on this ground also no discrimination can be
made vis-a-vis two married daughters of deceased employee.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
7 WP-25267-2023
1 5 . In view of the discussion made above, the submissions of
petitioner's counsel are not acceptable. The provisions of Clause 4.1 of the
policy, dated 29.09.2014, are equally applicable when a married daughter is
found to be in Government employment. Thus, the decision of the
respondent-authority in rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment by invoking Clause 4.1 of the policy cannot be found fault
with.
16. The learned Govt. Advocate also referred to Coordinate Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Shankar Sharma Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.21399 of 2024) wherein this Court observed that a
daughter aged about 37 years if sitting idle at home then she ought not be
allowed to be appointed on compassionate ground. This Court held in para 8
as under:
"8. Petitioner is aged 37 years and his father suffered two
years back, it means, the petitioner by now must have earned
while working in some organization /unit and if he is 37
years of age and sitting idle then he ought not be allowed to
be appointed on compassionate basis and respondent cannot
be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner. Mother of the petitioner already received the
exgratia amount along with the gratuity. When petitioner
already covered such long period (age-wise) after attaining
majority therefore, the theory of financial distress to the
family goes into oblivion. Therefore, no such direction can
be given to the respondents to give compassionate
appointment to the petitioner."
17. The judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Somyashree
(supra) relied upon by petitioner's counsel was a case where the Apex Court
was considering as to whether a divorced daughter qualify as a dependent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26251
8 WP-25267-2023
when the policy only covers unmarried and widowed daughter. Likewise, in
the case of Premlata (supra), the issue considered by Apex Court was
whether compassionate appointment can be granted on a post higher than the
one held by deceased. The issue involved in the said cases was thus different
and does not help the petitioner.
18. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the decision taken by respondent-authority in
rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is just
and proper and in consonance with the terms of the policy, the same does not
deserves any interference by this Court. The petition, therefore, fails and is
dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
