The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has ruled that authorities dealing with compassionate appointment claims should not adopt an overly technical approach when a deceased employee’s family has already approached the department within the prescribed period.
In a significant judgment, the Division Bench held that where one dependent initially applies for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period but is subsequently found ineligible because of lack of qualification, the authorities should give the family an opportunity to nominate another eligible dependent. The subsequent application by another family member cannot automatically be treated as a completely fresh and delayed claim.
The judgment emphasises that the very object of compassionate appointment schemes is to provide immediate financial support to the family of an employee who dies in service. Therefore, authorities are expected to act with sensitivity and compassion instead of rejecting genuine claims merely on technical grounds.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of an employee of Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Gwalior, on February 4, 2015. He was stated to be the sole earning member of his family.
Following his death, his elder son submitted an application for compassionate appointment on July 17, 2015, well within six months of the employee’s death.
However, the department returned the application in January 2016 and asked the applicant to rectify certain defects and submit the application afresh. The son was subsequently unable to pursue the matter because he did not possess the mandatory ITI Diploma qualification required for the post.
The family thereafter agreed to nominate the deceased employee’s daughter, Divya Kushwah, for compassionate appointment. She submitted her application on October 4, 2021.
The company, however, rejected her application in December 2021 on the ground that it had been filed beyond the six-month period prescribed under Clause 3.3 of the 2018 Compassionate Appointment Policy.
Challenge Before the High Court
Divya challenged the rejection and relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi. However, the General Manager rejected her representation by a final order passed in June 2023.
Her writ petition challenging that order was subsequently dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court in September 2025.
She then approached the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Upendra Yadav argued that the family had never abandoned its claim for compassionate appointment. The deceased employee’s son had already submitted an application within the prescribed period. His inability to obtain appointment arose only because he lacked the requisite qualification.
According to the appellant, the department should have informed the family that another eligible dependent could apply instead of treating the daughter’s application as a fresh claim made several years after the employee’s death.
Court Rejects Technical Approach
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi examined the circumstances surrounding the applications.
The Court noted that the employee had died while in service and that his family had approached the department within the prescribed period through the deceased employee’s son.
The Bench found that the subsequent application by the daughter should not be viewed in isolation. The family was seeking only one compassionate appointment and had already expressed its intention to seek such appointment through the earlier application.
The Court observed that when the initially nominated dependent is found ineligible, the competent authority should call upon the family to nominate another dependent who satisfies the prescribed qualifications.
The Bench stressed that the purpose of compassionate appointment is not defeated merely because the first dependent nominated by the family does not satisfy the eligibility requirements.
Compassion Must Prevail Over Technical Rigidity
The High Court made an important observation regarding the manner in which compassionate appointment applications should be handled.
It held that the competent authority is expected to demonstrate “actual compassion and sensitivity” rather than adopt a rigid and technical approach.
The Court further observed that a family cannot be expected to submit applications from all its members simultaneously. Normally, the family nominates one dependent, and if that person is found unsuitable or unqualified, another eligible dependent may be considered.
The Bench relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kalpana Wd/o. Vilas Taram v. State of Maharashtra. That decision recognises that substitution of one dependent by another does not necessarily constitute a fresh or subsequent claim where the family is seeking only one appointment arising from the death of the employee.
Supreme Court Principle Distinguished
The respondents relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which establishes that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and is intended to alleviate the immediate financial hardship caused by the employee’s death. It cannot ordinarily be claimed as a vested right indefinitely.
However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision does not disregard this principle. Instead, it focuses on the fact that the deceased employee’s family had already initiated the process within the prescribed period.
Thus, the Court treated the issue not as a case where the family had remained inactive for years, but as a situation where the original application was made in time and the subsequent substitution arose because the first applicant lacked the required qualification.
High Court’s Final Direction
The Division Bench set aside both the rejection order passed by the company and the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition.
The matter was remanded to the competent authority for consideration of the appellant’s claim on its merits.
The authority was directed to reconsider the application within 30 days from the date of production of the certified copy of the High Court’s order. The Court specifically directed that the matter should be decided through a reasoned and speaking order and should not be rejected merely on technical grounds.
There was no order as to costs.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reinforces an important principle in compassionate appointment matters: procedural rules and limitation provisions should not be applied mechanically where the deceased employee’s family has already initiated its claim within the prescribed period.
Where the originally nominated dependent is found ineligible, the competent authority should consider whether another eligible dependent can be nominated rather than treating the substitution as an entirely new and delayed claim.
The ruling therefore places an important responsibility on government departments and public-sector employers to balance statutory requirements with the humanitarian purpose underlying compassionate appointment schemes.
Case Details
Case: Divya Kushwah v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi
Subject: Compassionate Appointment — Limitation — Substitution of Dependent — Technical Rejection