[Cites 31, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Singh Bhadouriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
1 WP. No. 27245 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27245 of 2018
GOPAL SINGH BHADOURIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred by petitioner seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the impugned order dated :30.08.2018 Annexure P/1
may kindly be quashed.
(ii)That, the impugned order dated 20.02.2013 Annexure P/2
be also quashed and respondents be directed to grant the
compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per his
qualification.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 30.08.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby, in compliance
with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2467/2014, the claim of
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. It is
further submitted that impugned order is contrary to law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412
and is also contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of
filing of the present petition, petitioner was aged about 54 years and now his
age is approximately 61-62 years. It is further submitted that at this stage, the
case of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. It is
also submitted that the deceased expired in the year 1965 and since then, the
family of the deceased including petitioner has been surviving. More than 60
years have elapsed since the date of death of the deceased; therefore, on this
ground as well, the case of petitioner cannot be considered.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is a settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is intended
to enable a family member of a deceased or incapacitated employee to tide over
sudden financial crisis; therefore, such appointment should be made promptly
to relieve the family from distress.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. by judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed in Civil
Appeal Nos.8842-8855/2022 has held as under :-
"7.1. . . . . . .
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the
principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is
faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner
vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301.
When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it
should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve,
the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G.
(Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In
the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus
Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein
it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is
not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of
the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the
government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in
March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after
four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in
March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When
the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years
had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant.
This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and
material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in
spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that
granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a
considerable amount of time after the death of the government
employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a
scheme for compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule
that appointment to any public post in the service of the State
has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the
policy is that it recognizes that 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. That it is the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to
allow the benefit of compassionate appointment......
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K.
decided on 11/2/2025 in Civil Appeal No. 30532/2019 has held 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
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
sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009)11 SCC 453].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
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 Das (2008)15 SCC 560].
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 (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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
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
fulfil 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].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
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 (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-inharness
would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see
Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012)11 SCC 307 , Union
Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh (2006)7 SCC 350 , National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand (2004)12 SCC
487 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].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
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.
29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be
achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed
the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as
salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The
underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-
harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected
passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the
family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that
but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not
survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly
to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant
appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own
peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the
financial condition of the family. It is only in "hand-to-mouth" cases
that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered
and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-to-
mouth" cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is
'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as
food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of
sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard
of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
30. The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above seems
to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making
the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought
to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully
oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14321
31. Thus, examination of the financial condition to ascertain whether
the respondent and his mother were left in utter financial distress
because of the death of the bread earner is not something that can be
loosely brushed aside."
8. Perusal of record reveals that at the time of filing of the present petition,
the petitioner was aged about 54 years, and now his age is approximately 61-62
years. At this stage, the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment
cannot be considered. Deceased expired in the year 1965 and since then, the
family of the deceased including the petitioner, has been surviving. More than
60 years have elapsed since the date of death of the deceased; therefore, on this
ground as well, the case of petitioner cannot be considered.
9. Considering the above, this petition is dismissed.
10. However, petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for
compensation/ exgratia payment, if any, in accordance with law.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
