Compassionate Appointment Not A Property Right, No Succession Certificate Needed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that authorities cannot insist on a succession certificate while deciding claims for compassionate appointment, observing that such appointments are not a matter of inheritance but a welfare measure meant to protect a deceased employee’s family from financial hardship.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Ritesh Van and dismissing a connected plea by his sister Anita Van over rival claims for compassionate appointment after the death of their father, Rameshvan Goswami, who was working as a driver at the District Hospital in Ratlam. The Court directed the authorities to consider Ritesh Van’s application under the State’s 2014 compassionate appointment policy within 60 days.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Priyvrat Singh Chouhan argued that Ritesh Van had applied for compassionate appointment in December 2021 after the death of his father in June 2020. He submitted that Anita Van, a married daughter, had earlier given a no-objection affidavit supporting his appointment and was therefore estopped from later opposing his claim.

Advocate Utkarsh Joshi, appearing for Anita Van, argued that she was equally entitled as a legal heir and dependent daughter. It was contended that the no-objection affidavit relied upon by the petitioner was forged and that a nominee could only act as a custodian of service benefits. The State was represented by Government Advocate Ayushyaman Choudhary.

The dispute arose after both siblings sought compassionate appointment, prompting the authorities to issue communications asking them to produce a succession certificate before deciding the competing claims.

Rejecting the stand of the authorities, the Court held that the demand for a succession certificate was legally unsustainable. “Compassionate appointment is not a heritable estate or a property right that devolves by succession,” the Court observed, adding that such appointments are intended “to save the bereaved family from sudden financial destitution.”

The Court explained that a succession certificate is generally required for claiming movable assets such as bank accounts, shares, mutual funds or debts, and not for deciding eligibility under compassionate appointment schemes.

While examining the rival claims, the Court relied upon the Madhya Pradesh compassionate appointment policy dated September 29, 2014, which was applicable at the time of the employee’s death. The policy gives priority first to the surviving spouse and thereafter to a son or unmarried daughter. A widowed or divorced daughter is considered in the next category, while a married daughter becomes eligible only in limited circumstances.

The Court noted that Anita Van had failed to establish through any decree of divorce or documentary material that she was legally separated from her husband. It therefore held that she continued to fall within the category of a married daughter and could not supersede the claim of the deceased employee’s son under the policy framework.

The bench also rejected Anita Van’s reliance on judgments dealing with disputes between candidates falling within the same category of eligibility, observing that the present dispute involved different categories altogether. It further clarified that principles governing nomination and succession for financial benefits could not be extended to compassionate appointment claims.

Allowing the petition filed by Ritesh Van, the Court quashed the communications dated January 23 and February 6, 2024. However, it directed the authorities to obtain an affidavit from him affirming that he would properly maintain his mother and other dependents. The Court added that if he failed to fulfill this obligation, the authorities would be free to annul the appointment after following due process of law.

The Court also refused to place reliance on an affidavit later submitted by the deceased employee’s wife supporting Anita Van’s claim. It observed that under the 2014 policy, such nomination by the surviving spouse could assist only an unmarried daughter or a case where the deceased employee had no sons. Since a son was available and had applied for appointment, the mother’s affidavit could not override the hierarchy prescribed under the policy.

Case Title: Riteshwan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matter

Date of Order: May 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai