While dismissing a plea for compassionate appointment raised more than 28 years after the death of the breadwinner, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that there is no necessity to say goodbye to the normal rule of appointment and show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others once it is proved that, despite the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and a substantial period had passed.

The High Court was considering a petition against an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of the death of her father Shri Kajju, who expired on October 10, 1998.

The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held, “On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that, in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and a substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others, ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate Ashok Kumar Chakarvarti represented the Petitioner while Advocate Greeshm Jain represented the respondent.

Factual Background

The earlier wife of Shri Kajju, i.e. Millo Bai had applied for seeking compassionate appointment for husband of the present petitioner i.e. Bheemrao, i.e. son-in-law of the deceased but when that application was rejected, then in the year 2019, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate support to the family of the bereaved employee who has lost his breadwinner.

Reference was made to the judgment in Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow Vs. Prabhat Singh, (2012), wherein it has been held that delay in seeking the appointment is an antithesis to the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner lost his father on October 10, 1998, but she moved an application for compassionate appointment admittedly on August 10, 2019, which was rejected on July 16, 2020. Considering that the writ petition was filed in the year 2020, the Bench held that after 28 years of bereavement in the family, if indulgence is shown, then it would be against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir (2006), explaining why delay may be a negative factor.

It was further noted that the family had been compensated by providing family pension to the widow. The Bench thus dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Rampyari Dhurve v. Chairman Managing Director and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:80399)

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Vivek Agarwal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.