Bhagwandas Raikwar vs The Chief Managing Director
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
1 WP-14065-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14065 of 2019
BHAGWANDAS RAIKWAR
Versus
THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Aditya Krishna Singh Kaurav on behalf of Shri Swapnil Ganguly
- Advocate for the respondent no.1 1 to 5.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :-
"A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-
P/5), in the interest of justice.
B. The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct
to the respondents authority to issue the order of the
compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner
in the interest of justice.
C. To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper
in the circumstances of this case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that father of petitioner was working in the
Gramin Vidhyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Nowgaon on the post of Driver.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
2 WP-14065-2019
He died in harness on 21.09.2009 It is submitted that the respondents had
issued the compassionate appointment scheme in the year 2013. The mother
of the petitioner soon after the death of her husband had applied for the claim
of her husband on account his death. The Collector directed the Managing
Director to consider the case of the mother of the petitioner. The Managing
Director, Gramin Vidhyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Nowgaon (for short the
"Samiti") has written a letter to the Collector (Annexure-P/2) that the
proceedings of merger of the said Samiti in the Electricity Board is under
process, therefore, compassionate appointment of the petitioner cannot be
considered. Thereafter, the petitioner in the year 2015 submitted an
application for compassionate appointment before the respondent no.3,
which was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-P/3)
on the ground that father of the petitioner was working in the erstwhile
Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Nowgaon, District- Chhatapur and
died on 21.09.2009, whereas the said society had been taken over/acquired
by the erstwhile M.P.E.B. in the year 2010 therefore, as per clause 1.1(iii) of
the Scheme at the time when father of the petitioner died, he was not the
employee of the MPSEB/Company, therefore, compassionate appointment
could not be granted to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause 1.2 of
the Compassionate appointment policy, 2018, the employees who died due to
sudden accident, electric accident, attack or vehicle accident, between
15.11.2000 and 10.4.2012 while working in the M.P. State Electricity
Board/Company, then one of their dependents would be entitled for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
3 WP-14065-2019
compassionate appointment as per clause 2 and 3 of the policy. He further
submits that the petitioner continuously pursing his claim for grant of
compassionate appointment, therefore, there is no delay in filing the
application for grant of compassionate appointment.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed
the prayer and submitted that the application was filed belatedly with delay
of around 6 years. The policy for compassionate appointment came into
force in the year 2013. The mother of the petitioner applied for claim of her
husband and compassionate appointment. At that point of time, there was no
Scheme for the employees of the society. Thereafter the petitioner had
applied in the year 2015, which was rejected by the respondent no.3 vide
impugned order dated 30.01.2019 on the ground that the death of the
employee has taken place before the merger of the Samiti into MPSEB.
Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and as
there was no policy for grant of compassionate appointment when the death
of the employee has taken place before the merger of the company, the claim
of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. Etc., decided on 3rd March, 2023 in Civil Appeal
Nos.8842-8855 of 2022 in which it has been held as under:-
“7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following
principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate
appointment makes a departure from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
4 WP-14065-2019
general provisions providing for appointment
to a post by following a particular procedure
of recruitment. Since such a provision
enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general
provisions and must be resorted to only in
order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to
enable the family of the deceased to get over
the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is
not a source of recruitment. The reason for
making such a benevolent scheme by the
State or the public sector undertaking is to
see that the dependants of the deceased are
not deprived of the means of livelihood. It
only enables the family of the deceased to get
over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at any
time in future. Compassionate employment
cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should
be provided immediately to redeem the
family in distress. It is improper to keep such
a case pending for years. v. In determining as
to whether the family is in financial crisis, all
relevant aspects must be borne in mind
including the income of the family, its
liabilities, the terminal benefits if any,
received by the family, the age, dependency
and marital status of its members, together
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
5 WP-14065-2019
with the income from any other source.
7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of
compassionate employment is to enable the family of
the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis
due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the
family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having
regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood
is provided, the family would not be in a position to
make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving
gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such appointment.
Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail
to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants
of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose
on account of death of a bread-winner, has been
overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act
with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning
compassionate appointment because on failure to do so,
the object of the scheme of compassionate would be
frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred
since the date of death of the deceased employee, the
sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its
significance and this would be a relevant circumstance
which must weigh with the authorities in determining as
to whether a case for the grant of compassionate
appointment has been made out for consideration.
7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a
claim for compassionate appointment is that the family
of the deceased employee would be unable to make two
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
6 WP-14065-2019
ends meet without one of the dependants of the
deceased employee being employed on compassionate
grounds. The financial condition of the family of the
deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the
primary consideration that ought to guide the
authorities’ decision in the matter.
7.5. Considering the second question referred to above,
in the first instance, regarding whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be considered after a
delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part
of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment
or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of
immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have
changed, for the better, since the time of the death of
the government employee. In such circumstances,
Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by
the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the
family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves,
most probably by availing gainful employment from
some other source. Granting compassionate
appointment in such a case, as noted by this 6
W.P.No.19868/2023 Court in Hakim Singh would
amount to treating a claim for compassionate
appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession which is
contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and the same is
relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by
the dependents of the deceased government employee
as a consequence of his death, a claim for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
7 WP-14065-2019
compassionate appointment may not be entertained after
lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of
the government employee.
8. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in
approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief
which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir
Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. vs. Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3
PC 221 as under:
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of
Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical
doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust
to give a remedy, either because the party
has, by his conduct, done that which might
fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver
of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy,
yet put the other party in a situation, in which
it would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in
either of these cases, lapse of time and delay
are most material. But in every case, if an
argument against relief, which otherwise
would be just, is founded upon mere delay,
that delay of course not amounting to a bar
by any statute or limitations, the validity of
that defence must be tried upon principles
substantially equitable. Two circumstances,
always important in such cases, are, the
length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval, which might affect
either party and cause a balance of Justice or
injustice in taking the one course or the other,
so far as it relates to the remedy.”
Whether the above doctrine of laches which
disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
8 WP-14065-2019
Court of England, could disentitle the grant
of relief to a person by the High Court in the
exercise of its power under Article 226 of our
Constitution, came up for consideration
before a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M. R. Meher, President,
Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC
1450. In the said case, it was regarded as a
principle that disentitled a party for grant of
relief from a High Court in the exercise of its
discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this Court
restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the
following words:
“9. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does
not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate
delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not
satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a
number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily
permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy
because it is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and
if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay,
it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship
and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It
was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked,
unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
9 WP-14065-2019
party rights in the meantime is an important factor
which also weighs with the High Court in deciding
whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.”
While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of
limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a
reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 6
SCC 538; NDMC vs. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.
9. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant
authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that
they diligently perused the matter and had not slept over
their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to
the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal vs.
Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179,
wherein the following observations were made:
“19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear
as crystal that even if the court or tribunal
directs for consideration of representations
relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it
does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
The dead cause of action cannot rise like a
phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of
representation to the competent authority
does not arrest time.”
(emphasis by us) *
13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate
appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable
to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
10 WP-14065-2019
Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which
was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail,
because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been
able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get
appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate
grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to
direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for
appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or
entertained. ”
7. Father of the petitioner had died in harness on 21.09.2009, and the
petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year
2015. It is well established principle of law that if a family can survive for a
considerable long time after the demise of breadwinner then the very purpose
for grant of appointment on compassionate ground would automatically get
frustrated. Fourteen long years have passed and the appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be treated as an alternative mode of regular
appointment. Appointment on compassionate ground is given by way of
solace to the dependents of the deceased employee so that they may
overcome the financial crunch on account of untimely demise of their
breadwinner.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs.
Arvindkumar T.Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held that the compassionate
appointment is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment is for the
urgent financial need and survival of the family after the death of the
government employee. It is held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
11 WP-14065-2019
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is
not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to
be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in
accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative
instructions governing the subject, taking into
consideration the financial condition of the family of the
deceased. Such a category of employment itself, is an
exception to the constitutional provisions contained in
Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no
discrimination in public employment. The object of
compassionate employment is to enable the family of
the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it
finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it.
(Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Shashank Goswami &
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2294)."
9 . Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary to
Government, Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh
@ Bheemappa (2021) 20 SCC 707 has held :
"18. ... This is fundamentally due to the fact
that compassionate appointment was always
considered to be an exception to the normal
method of recruitment and perhaps looked
down upon with lesser compassion for the
individual and greater concern for the rule of
law.
19. If compassionate appointment is one of
the conditions of service and is made
automatic upon the death of an employee in
harness without any kind of scrutiny
whatsoever, the same would be treated as a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
12 WP-14065-2019
vested right in law. But it is not so.
Appointment on compassionate grounds is
not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of
various parameters including the financial
position of the family, the economic
dependence of the family upon the deceased
employee and the avocation of the other
members of the family. Therefore, no one can
claim to have a vested right for appointment
on compassionate grounds. This is why some
of the decisions which we have tabulated
above appear to have interpreted the
applicability of revised Schemes differently,
leading to conflict of opinion. Though there
is a conflict as to whether the Scheme in
force on the date of death of the employee
would apply or the Scheme in force on the
date of consideration of the application of
appointment on compassionate grounds
would apply, there is certainly no conflict
about the underlying concern reflected in the
above decisions. Wherever the modified
Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this
Court applied those benefits, but wherever
the modified Scheme granted larger benefits,
the old Scheme was made applicable."
(emphasis supplied)
1 0 . Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel
Authority Of India Limited vs Gouri Devi (2022) 17 SCC 531, has held thus
:
10. As held by this Court in Punjab State
Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh [Punjab
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
13 WP-14065-2019
State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh,
(2019) 6 SCC 774 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S)
210] delay in pursuing claim/approaching
court would militate against claim for
compassionate appointment as very objective
of providing immediate amelioration to
family would stand extinguished. Before this
Court, there was a delay of 07 years in
approaching the Court and this Court
observed and held that on the ground of delay
itself, the heir/dependant of the deceased
employee shall not be entitled to the
appointment on compassionate ground.
11. In State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed
Mir [State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
(2006) 5 SCC 766 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1195] ,
this Court had occasion to consider the delay
and laches in case of appointment on
compassionate ground. By dismissing the
claim for appointment on compassionate
ground, which was made after a period of
four-and-a-half years of death of the
deceased employee, it was held that
appointment on compassionate ground is an
exception to general rule that appointment to
public office should be made on the basis of
competitive merits. It is further observed that
once it is proved that in spite of the death of
the breadwinner, the family survived and
substantial period is over, there is no need to
make appointment on compassionate ground
at the cost of the interests of several others
ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
14 WP-14065-2019
Constitution.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, applying the law laid down in
the aforesaid decisions and considering the
fact that in the present case the second
application was made after a period of 18
years, the impugned judgment and order
[SAIL v. Central Administrative Tribunal,
2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2509] passed by the
High Court and that of the Central
Administrative Tribunal directing the
appellant to re-consider the case of the
second son of the respondent is unsustainable
and deserves to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly the same are hereby quashed and
set aside. It is observed and held that the
second son of the respondent shall not be
entitled to the appointment on compassionate
ground as observed and held by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal confirmed
by the Division Bench of the High Court by
the impugned judgment and order
[SAIL v. Central Administrative Tribunal,
2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2509] . Present appeal
is allowed accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no order as
to costs."
11. In the present case, father of the petitioner was working in the
erstwhile Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Chhatarpur and died in
harness on 21.09.2009, whereas the said society had been taken over by the
erstwhile M.P.E.B. on 15.8.2010, therefore, at the time when father of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
15 WP-14065-2019
petitioner died, he was not the employee of the MPSEB/Company. The
policy for grant of compassionate appointment came into force in the year
2013 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year
2015. Thereafter, the policy was modified and amended policy came in
vogue vide order dated 27.7.2018 (annexure P/6). By way of impugned
order, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been
rejected.
12. The contention of the petitioner that clause 1.2 of the 2018 policy
would be applicable in the case of the petitioner is unsustainable in law as
clause 1.2 specifically provides for the benefit of appointment to the
employees of M.P. State Electricity Board/Company who died in harness
between 15.11.2000 and 10.4.2012, whereas father of the petitioner at the
time of his death was the employee of Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti
Maryadit Nowgaon, Chhatarpur, which got merged with the MPSEB vide
order dated 15.8.2010. Thus, in any case, the petitioner cannot be held
entitled to avail the benefit of the policy for grant of compassionate
appointment floated by the MPSEB/Company. Moreover, as per the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Bheemesh (supra); wherever the
modified Schemes diluted the existing benefits, this Court applied those
benefits, but wherever the modified Scheme granted larger benefits, the old
Scheme was made applicable.
13. Under these circumstances and in view of the preposition of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the respondents have rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67218
16 WP-14065-2019
grant of compassionate appointment as father of the petitioner died in
harness on 21.09.2009, when he was not the employee of the
MPSEB/Company and, therefore, the policy is not applicable to him.
Moreover, since the family survived for a considerable long period of time
after the death of breadwinner, the very purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground has already stood frustrated, accordingly, no case is
made out warranting interference.
14. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
rk.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 07-09-2026
19:29:21