Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds Grandson Eligible For Compassionate Appointment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Union of India and railway authorities to grant compassionate appointment to a man who sought employment after the death of his grandmother, holding that authorities cannot adopt a “hyper technical approach” when the policy itself permits appointment of a near relative.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed a miscellaneous petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had directed reconsideration of the claim made by Jitendra Verma.

The court observed that the respondent had lost multiple family members and was ultimately raised by his grandmother Chhama Bai, a Helper II in the Bhopal Division of West Central Railway, who died in service in June 2016.

Verma stated that his grandfather had died in 2002 and his father in 2006 after which he was brought up by his grandmother who later nominated him in her service records as her legal heir.

After her death on June 19, 2016, Verma applied for compassionate appointment relying on the railway policy that allows appointment not only to immediate family members but also to a “near relative” or an adopted son or daughter in certain circumstances.

However, the authorities rejected his claim arguing that there was no provision to grant compassionate appointment to a grandson and questioning the validity of documents produced by him including the succession certificate obtained from a civil court.

Before the High Court counsel for the Union of India, Arnav Tiwari challenged the tribunal order contending that the respondent had not established a legally valid adoption and therefore could not claim appointment under the relevant policy provisions.

On the other hand, advocate Manan Agrawal appearing for Verma argued that he was the only surviving family member and had already been recognised as nominee in the service records of the deceased employee.

The bench noted that the railway policy itself provides that the benefit of compassionate appointment may extend to a near relative who can act as the breadwinner of the family.

Rejecting the stand of the authorities the court observed that even if the respondent was not treated as an adopted son he would still fall within the category of a near relative eligible for consideration.

“The petitioners have not considered the definition and concept of near relative,” the court said adding that the respondents claim ought to have been examined in light of Clause III of the compassionate appointment policy.

The judges further noted that the respondent possessed a succession certificate and there was no other claimant for either compassionate appointment or the retirement dues of the deceased employee.

The court also expressed concern that the matter had remained pending for nearly a decade observing that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is defeated if authorities delay decisions through unnecessary technical objections.

“The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment gets frustrated if correct decisions are not taken within time,” the bench remarked while criticising the approach adopted by the authorities.

Holding that the tribunal had rightly directed reconsideration of the claim, the High court found no merit in the challenge mounted by the Union of India.

Dismissing the petition, the bench directed the authorities to grant compassionate appointment to Verma within thirty days and imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the petitioners for their adamant approach.

The court said that forcing the respondent to again approach the tribunal would only prolong a dispute that had already continued for several years despite a clear policy framework permitting consideration of near relatives.

With these observations, the High court affirmed the respondent’s entitlement and emphasised that compassionate appointment schemes must be implemented with sensitivity so that families facing sudden loss receive timely support from authorities concerned.

Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Jitendra Verma

Date of Order: February 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal