Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied on Technicality, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has held that a compassionate appointment claim cannot be shut down on limitation when the deceased employee's family had already approached the department in time, ruling that authorities must show real compassion rather than a rigid, technical attitude.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ appeal filed by Divya Kushwah, whose father died on February 4, 2015, while working with Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Gwalior. He was the family's sole breadwinner.

Soon after his death, the appellant's elder brother applied for compassionate appointment with the company on July 17, 2015. The department returned his application in January 2016, asking him to rectify defects and apply afresh. He could not pursue the claim further as he did not hold the mandatory ITI Diploma required for the post.

With the family's consent, the appellant then filed her own application on October 4, 2021. The department rejected it in December 2021, citing delay under Clause 3.3 of the 2018 Policy, which prescribes a six-month limitation from the employee's death. Her representation, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi, did not persuade the General Manager, who passed a final order in June 2023 affirming the rejection. A writ petition against this order was dismissed by a Single Judge in September 2025, prompting the present appeal.

Advocate Upendra Yadav, appearing for the appellant, argued that her brother's application, filed within six months of the death, meant the family had already staked its claim in time, and her subsequent application could not be treated as an entirely fresh and delayed one. He submitted that the delay could not be viewed in isolation from the brother's earlier attempt, which failed only for want of a qualification, and that the company ought to have called upon the family to nominate another eligible dependent instead of closing the matter on a technicality.

Advocate Smrati Sharma, representing the respondents, opposed the appeal, contending that the application was rightly rejected as it was filed beyond limitation. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, where it was held that compassionate appointment is meant to address an immediate financial crisis and is not a vested right exercisable at any time.

Examining the facts, the bench noted it was undisputed that the sole earning member had died in service, the elder son's application had failed only for want of a qualification, and the appellant had then applied with family consent, only to be rejected on limitation. The court observed that the purpose of a compassionate appointment scheme is to provide one dependent of the deceased employee with a livelihood, and that if a dependent is found unqualified, it is "incumbent upon the competent officer to call upon the family... and advise them to submit an application by another dependent who fulfil the qualification, rather the closing the case on technical ground."

The bench added that "the actual compassion and sensitivity should be shown by the competent authority rather than rigid and technical attitude," and that families are not expected to apply together, with whoever is found suitable to be considered. Relying on the Bombay High Court's Full Bench ruling in Kalpana Wd/o. Vilas Taram v. State of Maharashtra, the bench held that substitution of one dependent by another does not amount to a fresh or subsequent application, since the family seeks only one appointment on the deceased's behalf.

Setting aside the rejection order and the Single Judge's dismissal, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the company authority, directing it to decide the application on merits within 30 days of production of the certified order, and to pass a reasoned, speaking order without rejecting it on technical grounds. There was no order as to costs.

Case Title: Divya Kushwah vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and Others

Date of Order: August 19, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi

Tags: