Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Panchware vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 6th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10543 of 2022
DEVENDRA PANCHWARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tapan Kumar Bathere - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ankita Khare - Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of his father, has been turned down as the elder brother of the petitioner was found to be employed in Government service, the present petition is filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father late Shri Ramnath Panchware was working as Grade - IV employee at Veterinary Dispensary, Kinhi, Tahsil Kirnapur, District Balaghat. He died in harness on 4.10.2020. Before the death of his father, petitioner, his mother and brother were living with him and were totally dependent upon his father. The petitioner's brother namely Deepak Panchware is working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Forces and got 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 married in the year 2010 and he has also a daughter. The brother of the petitioner is living separately from the family and currently posted at Raipur. The petitioner's brother is not helping and supporting the family. As the petitioner has no source of income for his livelihood, he preferred an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of the death of his father along with an affidavit before the respondents authorities. The said application was considered and rejected by the respondents on the ground that petitioner's elder brother is employed in Central Industrial Security Forces.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that since a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that his brother is not supporting any financial help to the petitioner and his mother and is residing separately from the petitioner and his mother and is presently posted at Raipur, therefore, the authorities should have considered the claim of the petitioner and an enquiry should have been conducted with respect to the fact of penury and dependency and thereafter, a decision should have been taken. Relying upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Mehmood Hussain Mansuri Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ Appeal No.729/2013 decided on 25.6.2014 as well as Ms. Karuna Bhatt Vs. State of M.P. and another in Writ Appeal No.866/2018 decided on 28.2.2019, it is prayed that the petition be allowed by quashing the impugned order and the respondents authorities be directed to accord compassionate appointment to the petitioner in lieu of death of his father.
3NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640
4. Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the petition and argued in support of the impugned order pointing out the fact that the petitioner's elder brother is already in Government job working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Forces. Further submits that there is a circular / Policy of the General Administration Department, Bhopal (MP) dated 29.9.2014 applicable to the case of the petitioner. Clause 4.1 of the Policy specifically states that if any of the family members of the deceased employee is already employed in a Government service, then in that case, the claim for compassionate appointment to other family members will not be considered. The brother of the petitioner is already employed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Forces and is still working on the said post. This fact is not disputed. Therefore, the authorities have rightly decided the application of the petitioner and accordingly rejected. Learned State counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others passed in WA No.373/2015 decided on 10.5.2016 as well as Ashavnee Kumar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and another passed in WA No.401/2022 decided on 2.5.2022 and has contended that the Division Bench has discussed in detail and arrived at a conclusion that merely because a member of the family is in government service or corporation, board, council, commission etc. has started residing separately, he cannot be excluded from the class under Clause 4.1 of the Policy and prayer is made for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640
6. On perusal of the record it is seen that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents authorities on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is in government job working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Forces and they have relied upon Clause 4.1 of the Policy / circular dated 29.9.2014. Relevant clause is as under :-
4.1. दवंगत शासक य सेवक के प रवार का कोई भी सद य य द पूव से शासक य सेवा अथवा िनगम, मंडल, प रषद, आयोग आ द म िनयिमत सेवा म िनयो जत हो (आवेदक के प रवार का कोई सद य िनयिमत सेवा म िनयो जत ना होने का शपथ प तुत करना होगा)
7. The said clause is applied by the authorities and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the said issue in detail in the case of Prajesh Shrivastava (supra) and it has been held as under :-
8. The issue which crops up for consideration is whether Clause 4.1 of the Policy dated 18.8.2008 would entitle a member of the family of Government servant, who dies in harness, for appointment on compassionate ground, if another member of deceased Government servant is in Government service, but not residing with the family.
9. Clause 2 of the Policy envisages class of person eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Clause 2.2 which, we are concerned with, stipulates :
**2-2 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dk iq= vFkok vfookfgr iq=h vFkok ,slh fookfgr iq=h ftlds ifr dh e`R;q gks pqdh gks vFkok tks rykd'kqnk gks] fdUrq 'krZ ;g gksxh fd ,slh vfookfgr] fookfgr vFkok rykd'kqnk iw=h fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le;5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 ml ij iw.kZr% vkfJr gksdj mlds lkFk jg jgh gks] vFkok mijksDr ik= lnL; u gksus dh fLFkfr esa fo/kok iw=o/kq tks 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q ds le; ml ij iw.k Zr% vkfJr gksdj lkFk jg jgh gks A**
10. Careful reading of the Clause reveals that a son or unmarried daughter, or married daughter whose husband has died (widowed daughter) or divorcee daughter, subject to that such unmarried, married or divorcee daughter is wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant and is living with him/her. In case of non-availability of such persons, widowed daughter-in-law, wholly dependent and/or living with the Government servant at the time of death, are the persons eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
11. Clause 4 lays down class of persons ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. These are :
4- vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy;s vik=rk fuEufyf[kr fLFkfr e sa vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxh % 4-1 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj dks dksbZ Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk ik= lnL; ;fn iwoZ ls 'kkldh; lsok vFkok fuxe eaMy] ifj"kn] vk;ksx vkfn esa fu;kftr gS A] 4-2 ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dh e`R;q vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q iw.kZ djus ds ckn lsoko`f)@iqufuZ;qfDr@lafonk fu;qfDr ds nkSjku gksrh gS] 4-3 lkoZtkfud midez ds e`r dfeZ;ks ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks 'kklu varxZr vuqdEik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxh A 4-4 dsUnz 'kklu ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk vFkok mlds LoRok/khu ;k mlds }kjk fu;af=r fdlh lkoZtfud midze vFkok fuxe@e aMy@vk;ksx }kjk inP;qr O;fDr A 4-5 ;fn fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod] izf'k{kq rnFkZ vFkok lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksA 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 4-6 fnukad 1-1-2007 ds iwoZ vLohd`r vFkok fujkfd`r izdj.kksa ij iwufoZpkj ugha fd;k tk;sxk A 4-7 fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj ds fcUnq dzekad 2-1 ls 2-4 esa n'kkZ;s iw.kZr% vkfJr lnL; dks NksMdj vU; dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA 4-8 dk;kZy; izeq[k@fu;qfDr izf/kdkjh bl ckr dks lqfuf'pr djus ds fy;s O;fDrxr :i ls ftEe snkj gksaxs fd fnox ar 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj dks okLro e sa rkRdkfyd lgk;rk ds :i esa vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh vko';drk gS A** English translation of these Clauses are :- Clauses are : -
4. Ineligibility for compassionate appointment :
In the following circumstances, they are not eligible for compassionate appointment :-
4.1 If any eligible family member of the deceased government servant is already employed in government service, or corporation, board, council, commission etc. 4.2 If any government servant dies after completing the age of superannuation during extension of service/re- appointment/contractual appointment. 4.3 The family members of deceased employee of public sector shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment under the government.
4.4 Any person dismissed by the Central Government or any State Government or any Public Sector or Corporation/Board/Commission under its title or controlled by it. 4.5 If the deceased government servant has been appointed on the basis of apprentice, ad hoc or contract. 4.6 The cases rejected or disposed of before 1.1.2007 shall not be considered again.
4.7 No other member shall be eligible for compassionate appointment except those wholly dependent members, 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 indicated at Serial No.2.1 to 2.4, of the family of deceased Government servant.
4.8 Office Head / Appointment Authority shall be personally responsible to ensure that the family of deceased government servant is really in need of compassionate appointment as an immediate aid.
12. We are presently concerned with Clause 4.1 and 4.7.
13. Evidently, clause 4.1 stipulates **fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj dks dksbZ Hkh vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk ik= lnL; ;fn iwoZ ls 'kkldh; lsok vFkok fuxe eaMy] ifj"kn] vk;ksx vkfn esas fu;kftr gS A** Whereas, Clause 4.7 envisages **fnoaxr 'kkldh; lsod ds ifjokj ds fcUnq dzekad 2-1 ls 2-4 esa n'kkZ;s iw.kZr% vkfJr lnL; dks NksMdj vU; dks vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha gksxh A**
8. Division Bench has considered the case of Prakash Parmar v. Government of M.P., 2012 (4) MPLJ 539 wherein definition of Family was considered in terms of M.P. Fundamental Rules and M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 and it was held as under :-
18. In Prakash Parmar (supra), the Writ Court though was dwelling upon Clause 4.1 of the Policy;
however, borrowed the definition of 'family' from M.P. Fundamental Rules and M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (for brevity '1958 Rules).
19. Under M.P. Fundamental Rules, -
(8) Family means a Government servant's wife or husband, as the case may be, residing with the Government servant and legitimate children and step 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 children residing with and wholly dependent upon the Government servant. Except for purposes of Section XVI- A of the Supplementary Rules in Appendix V, it includes, in addition, parents, sisters and minor brothers, if residing with and wholly dependent upon the Government servant.
(b) For the purpose of Section XI, it includes in addition unmarried and widowed sisters and minor brothers if residing with and wholly dependent upon the Government servant.
Note.- Government servant's wife or husband, as the case may be, legitimate children, step children, father, mother, step mother, unmarried and widowed sisters, minor brothers who reside with the Government servant and whose income from all sources including pension (inclusive of temporary increase/relief in pension and pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits) does not exceed Rs.1275 p.m. may be deemed to be wholly dependent upon the Government servant.
Notes. -(1) Not more than one wife is included in the term 'family' for the purposes of these rules. (2) An adopted child shall be considered to be a legitimate child if, under the personal law of the 9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 Government servant, adoption is legally recognised as conferring on it the status of a natural child.
[Please see. Chapter II F.R.9]
20. So far as definition of 'family' under 1958 Rules is concerned, it means -
"(i) The wife or husband of a Government servant,
(ii) The parents, legitimate children including children adopted legally and step children of such Government servant residing with and wholly dependent on the Government servant."
21. However, clarification was issued by the Public Health Department vide its Circular No.2273/1697/XVII/Med.(iii) dated 5.5.1960, clarifying the expression 'residing with' stating - "a question has been under consideration of Government whether the term 'residing with' occurring in Rule 2(d)(ii) of 1958 Rules should be held to mean physical residence to the family members of Government servant at his headquarters. Government have now decided that the members of Government servant's family who are kept by the Government servant concerned at a place other than his own residence for education or treatment or for the sake of convenience to himself should be deemed to be residing with him. The said clarification issued 10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 by the Government thus leaves no iota of doubt that under 1958 Rules, if members of the family is kept away from the residence of Government servant or for the sake of convenience to himself is treated to be a member of family.
22. This aspect seems to have escaped from the consideration in the case of Prakash Parmar (supra).
23. Furthermore, in Ku. Priyanka Dixit (supra) and Prakash Parmar (supra), the emphasis is on the fact that though an incumbent is a member of the family but cannot be treated as such because living separately and not residing with the Government servant.
24. The word 'reside' came to be considered in Mst. Jagir Kaur (supra) in the context of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for entertaining the petition of a wife for maintenance, wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold -
"6. .... The said meaning, therefore, takes in both a permanent dwelling as well as a temporary living in a place. It is, therefore, capable of different meanings, including domicile in the strictest and the most technical sense .."11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640
25. Similarly, in Union of India v. Dudh Nath Prasad (2000) 2 SCC 20, it is held -
"14. The word '"reside" has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "dwell permanently or for a considerable time; to have one's settled or usual abode; to live in or at a particular place." The meaning, therefore, covers not only the place where the person has a permanent residence but also the place where the person has resided for a "considerable time"."
26. Therefore, merely because a member of the family of Government servant, who is in the employment in government service, or corporation, board, council, commission etc., has started residing separately, he cannot be excluded from the class under Clause 4.1 of the Policy.
27. There are other reasons why we are of the opinion that the family member in employment but living separately has to be treated as a member of family of deceased Government servant.
28. Trite it is that appointment to public service is to be on merit in accordance with the Rules furthering the principle enunciated in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Exception, however, has been carved out in favour of dependents of employees who die in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. For that, State Government has evolved a policy for appointment on compassionate ground with an object to provide immediate relief to such bereaved family.
29. While dwelling upon this aspect, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh (1997) 8 SCC 85 -
"8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception belief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread-winner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such 13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment."
30. Thus, while acknowledging the exception carved out for appointment on compassionate ground, it has been categorically observed that "object of providing such an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment". Similarly, in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 384, it is held -
"11. However, it is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground 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 dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis."
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 14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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 apportionment is in the employment in government service or corporation, board, council, commission etc., any other member of the family, though eligible, will not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground."
9. The said order was again followed in the case of Ashavnee Kumar Pandey (supra). A detailed discussion is done by the Division Bench of this court in Prajesh Shrivastava' case and a categorical finding 15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 has been recorded that merely a member of the family of the government employee is employed in government service has started residing separately; he cannot be excluded from clause 4.1 of the Policy. The Court has further gone to the extent that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and policy was required to be followed in strict sense.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G. K. in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.30532/2019) vide judgment dated 11.2.2025 reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 290 had an occasion to deal with the cases of compassionate ground and framed certain guidelines considering all the previous case law which are 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 16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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 side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009) 11 SCC 453].
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 Das19].
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 17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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 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 fulfill 18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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].
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 19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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-in- harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami32, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand34 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].
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to 20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 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."
11. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Shrivas reported in 2020 (10) SCC 496 has held as under :- 23. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassion appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr.4 We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, & 5 as under:
"3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, qua what would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.
4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that 4 (2020) 2 SCC 729 there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succor to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy 21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 is at that stage of time when the employee passes away.
5. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for such compassionate appointment."
12. If the aforesaid guidelines are seen then it is pointed out that the rules relating to compassionate appointment have to be given a strict interpretation. 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. It clearly carved out as exceptions to the general rule to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner of the family.
13. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it can safely be said that the policy applicable on the date of death was taken note of by the authorities. There 22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27640 is a provision in Clause 4.1 which deals with the fact that in case, any other family member is working in any of the government department, then the same will invalidate the claim of the candidate. In the present case, admittedly, elder brother of the petitioner is working as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Forces which is not disputed. Apart from the aforesaid, as the family has maintained themselves for a considerable period from the date of death of the sole bread winner of the family, therefore, the family was not in the need of compassionate appointment as there was no sudden financial crisis or hardship. Compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to a family facing hardship due to the death of a government employee. Compassionate appointment is not a guaranteed right for the deceased employee's family. It is a discretionary measure based on specific criteria and the applicant's financial situation.
14. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. No relief can be extended to the petitioner.
15. The petition sans merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JP JUDGE
Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2025.06.28 16:22:21 +05'30'