Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nikhil Kol vs Union Bank Of India on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
1 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 794 of 2019
NIKHIL KOL
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri N.P. Choudhary
Choudhary- Advocate for the petitioner.
Reserved on : 23/04/2026
Post on : 24/04/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the invocation of
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The challenge is
specifically directed against the impugned order dated 30/01/2018,
30/01/2018,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
2 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
bearing Annexure P/1, passed by the respondents. By the said
impugned order, the competent authority of the respondent Bank
has arbitrarily declined the legitimate request of the petitioner for
the grant of compassionate appointment following the untimely
demise of his father.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner prays for the issuance of
a writ of certiorari to effectively quash the impugned order dated
30/01/2018. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint him immediately on the
post of Peon/Messenger in the Sub
Sub-staff
staff cadre. The petitioner
claims this appointment from the retrospective date of the death of
his deceased father, i.e., 07/08/2016, along with all the
consequential and monetary benefits aarising thereof.
Facts of the Case
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the
petitioner’s father, Late Shri Shankar Prasad Kol, was a regular
employee of the respondent Bank. He was serving diligently on the
substantive post of ‘Daftary’ at the Sagra Branch in District Rewa,
Madhya Pradesh. He completed 22 years and 04 months of
continuous and uninterrupted service in the Bank before he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
3 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
tragically passed away on 07/08/2016 due to a massive and sudden
heart attack while in harness
harness.
4. The petitioner is the only son and a completely dependent,
unemployed youth of 20 years of age. His mother had already
passed away earlier in the year 2012, leaving the entire family
effectively orphaned upon the father’s sudden demise. The
petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and has
successfully passed his Class IX examinations in the year 2014
from Jabalpur, thereby fulfilling the basic educational criteria
required for the Sub–staff cadre.
5. The untimely death of the sole bread earne
earnerr has left the
surviving family in a state of utter destitution and severe financial
ruin. The petitioner bears the heavy liability of maintaining a family
of six members, including his own wife and a one-year-old
one old son.
Furthermore, he has the immense responsibility
responsibility of looking after
three unmarried, school-going
school going sisters aged 18, 16, and 14 years,
who are currently pursuing their education in Classes X, XII, and
IX at Jabalpur.
6. The entire family was solely and exclusively dependent upon
the monthly salary of the deceased father, and they are now
completely hand to mouth without any earning member. A new
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
4 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
scheme for compassionate appointment was introduced by the
respondents on 19/01/2015, which was made effective
retrospectively from 05/08/2014. Under this sspecific
pecific scheme, the
petitioner promptly submitted a comprehensive application to
Respondent No. 3, seeking immediate compassionate appointment.
7. The petitioner’s application was duly scrutinized, heavily
recommended by Respondent No. 3, and formally forw
forwarded
arded to
Respondent No. 2 vide official correspondence dated 30/01/2017.
The petitioner was continuously assured by the local authorities that
the appointment would be granted very shortly. However, after an
inordinate and unexplained delay, the respondent
respondentss abruptly declined
the appointment vide the impugned non-speaking
non speaking order dated
30/01/2018, completely shattering the family’s hopes.
Contentions of the Petitioner
8. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the
respondents have arbitrarily and unlawfully
unlawfully refused the
appointment on the completely false plea of an “unsatisfactory
service record” of his late father. It is vehemently argued that there
is absolutely no such exclusionary provision or penal clause laid
down in the existing compassionate appointment scheme.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
5 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
Therefore, importing an alien ground to deny survival benefits is
highly unjust and legally unsustainable.
9. The petitioner further contends that the primary object of the
prevailing scheme is to provide immediate financial assistance to
the dependent members of a deceased employee. Late Shri Shankar
Prasad Kol served the Bank cleanly, and no major penalty was ever
initiated against him during his entire 22
22-year
year tenure. The family is
facing immense hardships, and denying the appointment defeats the
very socio-economic
economic purpose for which the benevolent policy was
originally framed.
10. It is additionally pleaded that the respondents caused an
unreasonable and inordinate delay of 28 months before issuing the
arbitrary rejection, which reflects
refle non-application
application of mind. The
petitioner places strong reliance on the judgments of this Hon’ble
Court in the cases of RinkuRazak V/s. State Bank of India (W.P.
No. 14428 of 2014), wherein similar arbitrary actions of the Bank
were set aside by this Cou
Court.
Contention of Respondent
11. Upon the institution of this writ petition, notices were duly
issued to the respondents, which were successfully and validly
served upon them on 13/02/2019. Despite the unquestionable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
6 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
service of notice, the respondents have consciously chosen not to
enter their appearance before this Court. No vakalatnama has been
filed on their behalf, and no reply or return has been placed on
record to controvert the pleadings and contentions raised by the
petitioner.
Analysis and Conclusion
12. Since the respondents have completely failed to represent
themselves or file any reply despite the service of notice back in
February 2019, this Court is compelled to proceed ex-parte.
ex
Looking into the sheer gravity of the case, the highly penurious
condition
ion of the surviving dependents, and the immense delay that
has already occurred, this Court deems it appropriate and strictly in
the interest of justice to finally hear and adjudicate this matter
without awaiting any further response.
13. The law relating to compassionate appointment is well–settled
and no longer res integra.
integra The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case
of The State of West Bengal versus DebabrataTiwari&Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855
8842 8855 of 2022, decided on 03/03/2023),
has authoritatively summ
summarized
zed the governing principleswhich reads
as under:-
“7.1.
7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC7 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a
policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and
the considerations that ought to guide determinatio
determinationn of
claims for compassionate appointment.
i. In SushmaGosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC
468,, this Court observed that in all claims for
appointment on compassionate grounds, there should
not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of
providingg appointment on compassionate grounds is to
mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the
bread earner in the family. Such appointment should,
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the
family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State State of Haryana,
(1994) 4 SCC 138,
138, this Court observed that the object
of granting compassionate employment is to enable the
family of a deceased government employee to tide over
the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to
one of the dependants of ththee deceased who is eligible
for such employment. That mere death of an employee
in harness does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood; the Government or the public authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied
that, but for the provision of employment, the family
will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be
offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a
scheme or rules provide for the same. This C Court
ourt
further clarified in the said case that compassionate
appointment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time after the death of a government
servant. That the object being to enable the family toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC8 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
get over the financial crisis which it fa
faces
ces at the time of
the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse
of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is
overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim
Singh, (1997) 8 SC
SCC 85, (“Hakim Singh”) this Court
placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in
the manner in which claims for compassionate
appointment are made by the dependants and decided
by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that
it should not be forgotforgotten
ten that the object of
compassionate appointment is to give succour to the
family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has
befallen the dependants on account of the untimely
demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this
Court held that it wou
would
ld not be justified in directing
appointment for the claimants therein on
compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death
of the government employee. That such a direction
would amount to treating a claim for compassionate
appointment as though it were
were a matter of inheritance
based on a line of succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta,
AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate appointment to be considered
reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a
sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as
a result of death of an employee who had served the
State and died while in service. It was further observed
that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and cannotcannot be made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
9 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature
of service rendered by the deceased employee.
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 Jagdishdish
Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301.
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. Prahala
Prahaladd Mani
Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the
decision of this Court in MumtazYunusMulani 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 mean
meanss 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 2743,2743, 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
10 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
spite of death ooff 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 appointmen
appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar
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 immediacy of the need
which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the
benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent
observations of this Court have been extracted as
under:
“41. Insofar as the indi
individual
vidual facts pertaining to the
Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the
record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was
instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for
compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May
2007. On 15 January 200 20088 the Additional Secretary
had required that the amount realized by way of
pension be included in the income statement of the
family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period
in excess of seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constit
Constitution.
ution. In Umesh Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC11 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the
basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in
the need of providing immediate assistance to the
family of the deceased employee. This sense of
immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of
the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.”
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment
makes a departure from the general provisions
providing for appointment to a post by following a
particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a
provision enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions
provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated
objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to
get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a
source of recruitment. The reason for making such a
benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector
undertaking is to see that the dependants of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood
livelihood.. It
only enables the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or
offered after a lapse of
of time and after the crisis is over.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC12 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
iv. That compassionate appointment should be
provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v.
In determining as to whether the family is in financial
crisis,
is, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind
including the income of the family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age,
dependency and marital status of its members, together
with the income from any other source.
source.”
14. The Apex Court has consistently ruled that such appointment
makes a strict departure from the general recruitment rules and is an
exception aimed at enabling the family to tide over a sudden
financial crisis. It is not a vested right to be claimed af
after
ter a long
lapse of time, nor is it an alternative source of recruitment. The
appointment must be provided immediately, keeping in view the
family’s overall financial condition, liabilities, and total absence of
alternative livelihood.
15. Keeping the afor
aforesaid
esaid binding principles in mind, I have
carefully and thoroughly perused the impugned rejection order
dated 30/01/2018 (Annexure P/1). The same reads verbatim as
under:
“With reference to your application on the captioned subject, we
have to inform that the matter was placed before the Competent
Authority and taking into account the unsatisfactory service
record of Late Shri Shankar Prasad Kol, the Committee
Compassionate Appointment has not considered your request for
compassion appointment as per the Scheme Scheme /Bank’s rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC13 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
Accordingly, the Bank has declined your request for
compassionate appointment the Bank.”
16. A meticulous scrutiny of the aforementioned rejection order
clearly reveals that it does not contain or cite any specific clause of
the applicable
ble policy which mandates that an “unsatisfactory
“unsatisfactory
service record”” can be a valid ground for rejection. The respondents
have completely failed to demonstrate how this alien criterion was
imported into the decision
decision-making
making process when the prevailing
compassionate appointment scheme does not contemplate any such
exclusionary provision.
17. This Court is utterly surprised as to how the alleged
unsatisfactory service record of the petitioner’s father can suddenly
be weaponized as a ground for the outrigh
outrightt rejection of a
compassionate appointment claim. The authorities have totally
bypassed the very essence and strict text of their own
compassionate appointment policy. The petitioner had applied
promptly, and the family’s acute destitution is undisputed on
record, yet the claim was mercilessly defeated on wholly extraneous
grounds.
18. These types of mechanical and apathetic rejections, which
quote non-existent
existent or legally unsupported reasons, are heavily
criticized and strongly deprecated by this Court. The rejection is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
14 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
demonstrably arbitrary, legally perverse, and entirely against the
established statutory law of compassionate appointment.
Consequently, the impugned action cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law, and the writ petition therefore deserves to be
be fully allowed
to secure the ends of justice.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents
are hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment afresh, strictly in accordance with the
prevailing policy,
cy, and without being influenced by the extraneous
ground mentioned in the quashed order dated 30/01/2018.
20. Let this exercise be completed, and an appropriate reasoned
order be passed, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of
receipt of a certified
rtified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the
petitioner is found eligible, the appointment shall be prospective in
nature.
21. This Court takes strong exception to the glaringly apathetic
approach adopted by the respondent authorities. The reco
record
rd reveals
that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment promptly
after his father’s demise on 07/08/2016. However, the respondents
kept the matter pending for an inordinate period and ultimately
rejected it on 30/01/2018 on a vague, extraneous ground that finds
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
15 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
no mention in the prevailing policy. Consequently, the petitioner
has been forced to endure severe financial hardship and prolonged
agony from 2016 till date for the realization of his legitimate claim.
The conduct of the respondents first
st in causing unreasonable delay
in decision-making,
making, and subsequently in totally failing to file any
reply before this Court despite being duly served as far back as
13/02/2019 smacks of glaring arbitrariness and a highly unilateral
approach towards a bene
benevolent welfare scheme.
22. Such conduct is unacceptable and is strongly deprecated by
this Court. To compensate for the unwarranted harassment and
immense hardship inflicted upon the impoverished petitioner, a cost
of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
o is imposed upon the
respondents. The said cost shall be paid to the petitioner by way of
a Demand Draft within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
23. Before parting with this matter, this Court deems it
imperative to record a strict word of caution directed at the
respondent authorities and competent officers regarding the
adjudication of compassionate appointment claims. It is a well-
well
settled proposition
n of administrative law that authorities are duty-
duty
bound to pass reasoned and speaking orders, strictly confining their
scrutiny to the four corners of the prevailing policy without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32557
2026:MPHC
16 W.P. No. 794/20
/2019
importing alien or unwritten criteria, such as the deceased’s past
service record in the present case. Dependents applying under such
benevolent schemes are already battling severe penury aand
nd sudden
financial destitution subjecting them to mechanical, cryptic, or
arbitrary rejections based on extraneous grounds not explicitly
mentioned
tioned in the scheme cruelly defeats the very objective of the
welfare measure and inflicts unwarranted harassment upon
vulnerable citizens.
24. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement of recording
explicit, policy-backed
backed reasons is essential to safeguard against the
arbitrary exercise of executive power and to facilitate effective
judicial review by the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, the
authorities are strictly warned that any future rejection orders found
to be bereft of proper reasoning or based on fabricated
fabricated grounds
outside the governing policy will be viewed wit
withh profound judicial
displeasure.
25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ
Petition stands allowed.Pending applications, if any, shall be
disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Arun/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 24-04-
2026 17:10:18
