Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Kevat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
1 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 10th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 22158 of 2018
DEEPAK KEVAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chandra Sen Roman - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred seeking the following relief (s):
**;kfpdkdrkZ dh izkFkZuk gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq, izn’kZ ih&1
dk vkns’k fnukad 04-08-2018 fujLr fd;k tk;s rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ dks vuqdEIkk fu;qfDr
iznku djus dh vkKk iznku djsA**
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner died on
01.01.1998 during the course of service and at the time of death of father the age
of petitioner was near about eight years. It is submitted that immediately after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
2 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
attaining majority petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate
appointment. When the said application for compassionate appointment could not
be considered by respondents then petitioner preferred WP.No.13313/2018 which
was decided vide order dated 22.06.2018. Thereafter, respondents rejected the
representation of petitioner vide order dated 04.08.2018 having considered the
policy dated 18.08.2008. It is submitted that respondents have wrongly relied
upon the policy dated 18.08.2008 as at the time of death of deceased policy dated
dated 10.06.1994 was applicable, however, the case of petitioner could not have
been decided on the basis of said policy.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent/State that even as per the Policy dated 10.06.1994 petitioner is not
entitled to grant of compassionate appointment as there is no provision in the said
policy that minor child after attaining majority can be considered for grant of
compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that deceased left for his
heavenly abode on 01.01.1998. Now, it is 2026. Petitioner has already survived
for more than 28 years and thus the purpose of compassionate appointment has
become frustrated.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The issue involved in the present case is as to whether after a lapse of near
about 28 years whether petitioner is entitled to the compassion by way of
appointment?
6. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Govt. Deptt. Of
Education (Primary) Vs. Bheemesh reported in 2021 SCC Online 1264 has
held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
3 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
12. But we do not consider it necessary to do so. It is no doubt true
that there are, as contended by the learned senior Counsel for the
respondent, two lines of decisions rendered by Benches of equal
strength. But the apparent conflict between those two lines of
decisions, was on account of the difference between an amendment
by which an existing benefit was withdrawn or diluted and an
amendment by which the existing benefit was enhanced. The
interpretation adopted by this Court varied depending upon the
nature of the amendment. This can be seen by presenting the
decisions referred to by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent in a tabular column as follows:
Citation Scheme in force Modified Scheme Decision of this
on the date of which came into Court
death of the force after death
Government
servantState Bank of The Scheme of the The 1996 Scheme Rejecting the
India v. Jaspal year 1996, which was subsequently claim of the wife of
Kaur (2007) 9 made the financial modified by policy the deceased
SCC 571 [a two condition of the issued in 2005, employee, this
member Bench] family as the main which laid down Court held that the
criterion, was in few parameters for application of the
force, on the date determining dependant made in
of death of the penury. One of the the year 2000,
employee in the parameters was to after the death of
year 1999. see if the income the employee in
of the family had the year 1999,
been reduced to cannot be decided
less than 60% of on the basis of a
the salary drawn Scheme which
by the employee at came into force in
the time of death.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
4 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
Therefore, the wife the year 2005.
of the deceased
employee claimed
the consideration
of the application
on the basis of
parameters laid
down in the policy
of the year 2005.
State Bank of The employee died But with effect This Court held
India v. Raj on 1.10.2004 and from 04.08.2005 a that the
Kumar (2010) 11 the applications new Scheme for application could
SCC 661 [a two for compassionate payment of be considered only
member Bench] appointment were exgratia lump-sum under the new
made on 6.06.2005 was introduced in Scheme, as it
and 14.06.2005. the place of the old contained a
On the date of Scheme. The new specific provision
death and on the Scheme contained relating to pending
date of the a provision to the applications.
applications, a effect that all
Scheme known as applications
compassionate pending under the
appointment old Scheme will be
Scheme was in dealt with only in
force. accordance with
the new Scheme.
MGB Gramin The employee died However, a new This Court took
Bank v. Chakrawa on 19.04.2006 and Scheme dated the view that the
rti Singh (2014) 13 the application for 12.06.2006 came new Scheme alone
SCC 583 [a two appointment made into force on would apply as it
member Bench] on 12.05.2006. A 6.10.2006, contained aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:204605 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
scheme for providing only for specific provision
appointment on ex gratia payment which mandated
compassionate instead of all pending
grounds was in compassionate applications to be
force on that date. appointment. considered under
the new Scheme.
Canara Bank v. M. The employee died The 1993 Scheme This Court
Mahesh on 10.10.1998 and was substituted by dismissed the
Kumar (2015) 7 the application for a Scheme for appeals filed by
SCC 412 [a two appointment on payment of ex the Bank on
member Bench] compassionate gratia in the year account of two
grounds, was 2005. But by the important
made under the time the 2005 distinguishing
Scheme of the year Scheme was features,
1993. It was issued, the namely, (i) that the
rejected on claimant had application for
30.06.1999. The already appointment on
1993 Scheme was approached the compassionate
known as “Dying High Court of grounds was
in Harness Kerala by way of rejected in the
Scheme.” writ petition and year 1999 and the
succeeded before rejection order
the learned Single was set aside by
Judge vide a the High Court in
Judgment dated the year 2003
30.05.2003. The much before the
Judgment was compassionate
upheld by the appointment
Division Bench in Scheme was
the year 2006 and substituted by an
the matter landed ex gratia Scheme
up before this in year 2005;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
6 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
Court thereafter. and (ii) that in the
In other words, the year 2014, the
Scheme of the year original scheme
2005 came into for appointment on
force : (i) after the compassionate
rejection of the grounds stood
application for revived, when the
compassionate civil appeals were
appointment under decided.
the old scheme;
and (ii) after the
order of rejection
was set aside by
the Single Judge of
the High Court
Indian The employee died A new Scheme was In the light of the
Bank v. Promila (2 on 15.01.2004 and brought into force decision in Canara
020) 2 SCC 729 [a the application for on 24.07.2004 Bank v. M. Mahesh
two member appointment was after the death of Kumar, this Court
Bench] made by his minor the employee. held that the case
son on 24.01.2004. Under this Scheme of the claimant
On these dates, a an ex gratia cannot be
circular bearing compensation was examined in the
No. 56/79 dated provided for, context of the
4.04.1979 which subject to certain subsequent
contained a conditions. After Scheme and that
Scheme for the coming into since the family
appointment on force of the new had taken full
compassionate Scheme, the gratuity under the
grounds was in claimant was old scheme, they
force. But the directed by the were not entitled
Scheme provided bank to submit a to seek
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
7 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
for appointment, fresh application compassionate
only for those who under the new appointment even
do not opt for Scheme. The under the old
payment of claimant did not Scheme.
gratuity for the full apply under the
term of service of new Scheme, as he
employee who died was interested only
in harness. in compassionate
appointment and
not monetary
benefit.
N.C. Under the existing But by virtue of an After taking note
Santosh v. State of Scheme referable amendment to the of a reference
Karnataka (2020) to Rule 5 of the proviso to Rule 5, made in State
7 SCC 617 (a Karnataka Civil a minor dependant Bank of
three Member Services should apply India v. Sheo
Bench) (Appointment on within one year Shankar Tewari to
Compassionate from the date of a larger bench, a
Grounds) Rules, death of the three member
1999, a minor Government Bench of this
dependant of a servant and must Court held in N.C.
deceased have attained the Santosh that the
Government age of 18 years on norms prevailing
employee may the date of making on the date of
apply within one the application. consideration of
year from the date Applying the the application
of attaining amended should be the basis
majority. provisions, the for consideration
appointment of of the claim for
persons already compassionate
made on appointment. The
compassionate Bench further held
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
8 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
grounds, were that the dependant
cancelled by the of a government
appointing employee, in the
authority which absence of any
led to the vested right
challenge before accruing on the
this Court. date of death of
the government
employee, can only
demand
consideration of
his application
and hence he is
disentitled to seek
the application of
the norms
prevailing on the
date of death of
the government
servant.
13. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, our attention was also drawn
to the decision of the three member Bench in State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas. But that case arose out of a claim made by
the dependant of a deceased Government servant, who was originally
appointed on a work charged establishment and who later claimed to
have become a permanent employee. The Court went into the
distinction between an employee with a permanent status and an
employee with a regular status. Despite the claim of the dependant
that his father had become a permanent employee, this Court held in
that case that as per the policy prevailing on the date of death, a work
charged/contingency fund employee was not entitled to compassionate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
9 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
appointment. While holding so, the Bench reiterated the opinion in
Indian Bank v. Promila.
14. The aforesaid decision in Amit Shrivas (supra) was followed by a
two member Bench of this Court in the yet to be reported decision in
the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi decided on
18.11.2021.
15. Let us now come to the reference pending before the larger Bench.
In State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (supra), a two
member Bench of this Court noted the apparent conflict between State
Bank of India v. Raj Kumar and MGB Gramin Bank on the one
hand and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar on the other hand and
referred the matter for the consideration of a larger Bench. The order
of reference to a larger Bench was actually dated 8.02.2019.
16. It was only after the aforesaid reference to a larger Bench that this
Court decided at least four cases, respectively in (i) Indian Bank v.
Promila; (ii) N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka; (iii) State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas; and (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Ashish Awasthi. Out of these four decisions, N.C. Santosh (supra)
was by a three member Bench, which actually took note of the
reference pending before the larger Bench.
17. Keeping the above in mind, if we critically analyse the way in
which this Court has proceeded to interpret the applicability of a new
or modified Scheme that comes into force after the death of the
employee, we may notice an interesting feature. In cases where the
benefit under the existing Scheme was taken away or substituted with a
lesser benefit, this Court directed the application of the new Scheme.
But in cases where the benefits under an existing Scheme were
enlarged by a modified Scheme after the death of the employee, this
Court applied only the Scheme that was in force on the date of death of
the employee. This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate
appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
10 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser
compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law.
18. If compassionate appointment is one of the conditions of service
and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness
without any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be treated as
a vested right in law. But it is not so. Appointment on compassionate
grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various
parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic
dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the
avocation of the other members of the family. Therefore, no one can
claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate
grounds. This is why some of the decisions which we have tabulated
above appear to have interpreted the applicability of revised Schemes
differently, leading to conflict of opinion. Though there is a conflict as
to whether the Scheme in force on the date of death of the employee
would apply or the Scheme in force on the date of consideration of the
application of appointment on compassionate grounds would apply,
there is certainly no conflict about the underlying concern reflected in
the above decisions. Wherever the modified Schemes diluted the
existing benefits, this Court applied those benefits, but wherever the
modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old Scheme was made
applicable.
19. The important aspect about the conflict of opinion is that it
revolves around two dates, namely, (i) date of death of the employee;
and (ii) date of consideration of the application of the dependant. Out
of these two dates, only one, namely, the date of death alone is a fixed
factor that does not change. The next date namely the date of
consideration of the claim, is something that depends upon many
variables such as the date of filing of application, the date of attaining
of majority of the claimant and the date on which the file is put up to
the competent authority. There is no principle of statutory
interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
11 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for
instance a hypothetical case where 2 Government servants die in
harness on January 01, 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of
these 2 deceased Government servants make applications for
appointment on 2 different dates say 29.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and a
modified Scheme comes into force on June 01, 2020. If the date of
consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining
whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two
different results, one in respect of the person who made the application
before June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied
after June 01, 2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same
date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different
dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another
thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of
application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be
the deciding factor. A rule of interpretation which produces different
results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is
inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the
cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme
itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under
the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme
should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the
date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.
7. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a substitute of direct
recruitment but it is a solace to the dependents of the bread winner who were
compelled to face the financial hardship on account of death of their bread
winner. If a family has successfully survived for considerably a long time after
the death of their bread winner then that circumstance by itself would also
frustrate the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
12 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
8. The Hon. 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 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 beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2046013 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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 immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis
for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment……
8. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in
approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary
relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained
succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. vs.
Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3 PC 221 as under:
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an
arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically
unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his
conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent
to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has,
though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party
in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if
the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these
cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every
case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be
just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not
amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of
that defence must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases,
are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done
during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a
balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the
other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”
Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief
to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of
relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under
Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M. R. Meher,
President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
14 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of
relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court
restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the
following words:
“9. … the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not
ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent
and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the
Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the
High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on
a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit
a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely
to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its
train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after
unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only
hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It
was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked,
unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights
in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with
the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such
jurisdiction.”
While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation
provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time,
vide Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC vs.
Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.
9. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petitioners submitted
their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it
cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had not
slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
15 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following observations
were made:
“19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that
even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of
representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it
does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of
action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission
of representation to the competent authority does not arrest
time.”
(emphasis by us)
10. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that
the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon submitting their applications
in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the
year 2015 i.e., for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy
approach of the authorities of the Appellant-State in dealing with their
applications, the Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed approaching the
High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the
authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching
the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as
discernible by the conduct of the Respondents Writ Petitioners. Such a
delay would disentitle the Respondents-Writ Petitioners to the
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the
order of the High Court dated 17th March, 2015, whereby the writ
petition filed by some of the Respondents herein was disposed of with a
direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal
to take a decision as to the appointment of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the
cause of action.
***
13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate
appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to
the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006,
in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even
though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
16 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is
therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered
or entertained.”
9. The Hon. 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].
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
17 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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
appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
18 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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].
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
19 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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].
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
20 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20460
21 WP. No. 22158 of 2018
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.”
10. 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.
11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
12. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 7/20/2026
6:41:57 PM
