Kapil Bilawaliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
1 WP-30237-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 30237 of 2025
KAPIL BILAWALIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for petitioner through VC.
Ms. Bhagyashree Gupta - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the
respondents;
(b) to quash the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure
P/10) and impugned order dated 14.5.2025 (Annexure P/11)
issued by Respondent No. 2, by a writ of CERTIORARI or any
other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(c) allow this petition with costs;
(d) pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the
facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the
petitioner."
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 31.12.2024 (Anexure
P/10) and 14.05.2025 (Anneuxre P/11) passed by The District Education
Officer, District Dewas/respondent No.2 whereby, the compassionate
appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that his
brother is already in the employment of the State Government.
The short facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, Late Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
2 WP-30237-2025
Bhanwarlal Bilawaliya, was serving as an Upper Division Teacher in

Government Boys Middle School, Tonkkhurd, District Dewas and died in
harness on 07.11.2022. According to the petitioner, after the death of his
father, the petitioner and the members of his family, who were dependent
upon the deceased employee, were left in financial distress. The petitioner,
possessing the requisite educational qualification, therefore submitted an
application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of
Laboratory Teacher in accordance with the State Government’s policy dated
29.09.2014. As the petitioner’s claim was not being processed, he
approached this Court by filing W.P. No.1268/2024. The said petition was
disposed of by order dated 05.02.2024 with a direction to the respondents to
consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and to pass a
reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 accepted the
petitioner’s claim and, vide order dated 10.06.2024, appointed him on
compassionate grounds as Laboratory Teacher in the regular pay scale of
Rs.5,200-20,200/- plus grade pay of Rs.2,400/-, subsequently revised to
Level-6, Index-1, and posted him at Government Girls Higher Secondary
School, Tonkkhurd, District Dewas. The petitioner joined his duties on the
same day. However, shortly thereafter, respondent No.2, vide order dated
05.07.2024, cancelled the petitioner’s compassionate appointment on the sole
ground that his elder brother, Shri Ashish Bilawaliya, was already employed
in Government service. The said order was passed without issuing any show-
cause notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.22033/2024 before this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
3 WP-30237-2025
Court. By order dated 02.08.2024, this Court set aside the order dated

05.07.2024 and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the
aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated
06.11.2024 along with documentary material to establish that his elder
brother was residing separately from the petitioner’s family for more than ten
years and had an independent family consisting of his wife and two children.
The petitioner relied upon documents including the Samagra ID Card,
electricity bill, property tax receipt, ration card and certificate dated
19.07.2024 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Devli, in support of the separate
residence of his brother. The petitioner further asserted that his own family,
comprising his aged mother, wife and two daughters, was dependent upon
the earnings of the deceased father, whereas his elder brother had been living
separately and was not dependent upon the deceased employee’s income.
Despite the aforesaid documents and submissions, respondent No.2 rejected
the petitioner’s claim and, vide orders dated 31.12.2024 and 14.05.2025,
again cancelled the compassionate appointment, recording, inter alia, that the
petitioner had not produced material establishing the separate residence of
his brother.
It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned orders have been passed
without properly considering the documentary evidence placed on record and
without conducting any appropriate enquiry into the separate residence and
financial independence of his elder brother. According to the petitioner, mere
existence of a blood relationship with a Government employee cannot, by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
4 WP-30237-2025
itself, disentitle him from compassionate appointment when such relative

was living separately and was not dependent upon the deceased Government
servant. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the orders dated 31.12.2024
and 14.05.2025, contending that the same are arbitrary, mechanical and
contrary to the object of the compassionate appointment policy dated
29.09.2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned orders dated 31.12.2024 and 14.05.2025 are wholly arbitrary,
mechanical and contrary to the object of the policy governing compassionate
appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father died in harness on
07.11.2022 while serving as an Upper Division Teacher and, upon his death,
the petitioner’s family was left in financial distress. The petitioner, being
otherwise qualified, was accordingly granted compassionate appointment by
respondent No.2 vide order dated 10.06.2024 and joined his duties on the
same day. However, his appointment was subsequently cancelled merely on
the ground that his elder brother, Shri Ashish Bilawaliya, was employed in
Government service. Learned counsel submits that the elder brother had been
residing separately for more than ten years, had an independent family
comprising his wife and children and was not dependent upon the income of
the deceased employee. In support thereof, the petitioner had placed on
record the Samagra ID Card, electricity bill, property tax receipt, ration card
and certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Devli, clearly establishing the
separate residence of the elder brother.
Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
5 WP-30237-2025
having been specifically brought on record pursuant to the earlier order of

this Court, respondent No.2 has failed to consider the same and has
mechanically reiterated the very ground on which the earlier order dated
05.07.2024 had been set aside by this Court in W.P. No.22033/2024. It is
contended that no proper enquiry was conducted regarding the separate
residence and non-dependence of the petitioner’s elder brother, nor the
documents submitted by the petitioner have been dealt with in the impugned
orders. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decisions of the Division
Bench of this Court in State of M.P. & Others v. Mehmood Hussain
Mansoor, W.A. No.729/2013, decided on 25.06.2014, and Ms. Karuna Bhatt
v. State of M.P. & Others , W.A. No.866/2018, decided on 28.02.2019 , to
submit that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
financial assistance to the dependents of the deceased employee and the
expression “family member” cannot be construed merely on the basis of
blood relationship, irrespective of actual dependency. It is, therefore,
submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the
petitioner’s compassionate appointment deserves to be restored.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the
petition, submits that the present petition is the second round of litigation
initiated by the petitioner in respect of the same compassionate appointment.
It is submitted that the petitioner was initially granted compassionate
appointment vide order dated 10.06.2024 on account of the death of his
father, Late Shri Bhanwarlal Bilawaliya, who was serving as an Upper
Division Teacher. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the authorities that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
6 WP-30237-2025
the elder brother of the petitioner was already employed in government

service in the School Education Department and was posted in the same
block, i.e., Tonkkhurd, District Dewas. Learned counsel submits that under
Clause 4.1 of the policy governing compassionate appointment, where a
member of the deceased employee’s family is already in government service,
another member of the family is not entitled to compassionate appointment.
It is, therefore, submitted that the appointment granted to the petitioner was
contrary to the applicable policy and was rightly cancelled by the competent
authority.
Learned counsel further submits that the earlier order dated 02.08.2024
passed by this Court in W.P. No.22033/2024 merely set aside the then
existing order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice
and directed the competent authority to issue a proper show-cause notice,
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter decide the
matter afresh in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the competent
authority passed the subsequent order dated 14.05.2025 after following due
procedure, which was also noticed by this Court while disposing of
Contempt Petition No.3638/2024 on 16.05.2025, reserving liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the said order in accordance with law. It is further
submitted that the appointment order itself specifically provided that in the
event of furnishing false information or suppression of material facts, the
appointment would be liable to be cancelled. The petitioner had suppressed
the material fact regarding the employment of his elder brother in
government service and, therefore, he cannot claim any vested right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
7 WP-30237-2025
continue in compassionate appointment. Learned counsel accordingly

submits that the impugned orders are in accordance with the applicable
policy and after due compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully
perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy essentially turns
upon the factual question as to whether the petitioner’s elder brother was
residing separately from the petitioner’s family and whether he was
financially independent of the deceased employee and his family. The
petitioner has not disputed that his elder brother is employed in Government
service. His specific case, however, is that such employment cannot operate
as an absolute bar in the facts of the present case because the elder brother
had been residing separately for more than ten years, had his own
independent family and was not dependent upon the deceased employee.
It is significant that, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court,
the petitioner placed specific documentary material before the competent
authority in support of his assertion regarding the separate residence of his
elder brother. The documents relied upon by the petitioner include the
Samagra ID Card, electricity bill, property tax receipt, ration card and the
certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. These documents could not have
been brushed aside merely by recording a general observation that the
petitioner was residing with his brother. Once the petitioner had specifically
raised a factual dispute and produced documentary material in support
thereof, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to objectively
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
8 WP-30237-2025
examine the said material and arrive at a reasoned conclusion on the question

of separate residence and dependency.
From a perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds that the
aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken in the manner required in law.
There is no enquiry report, Panchanama or other independent material on
record to demonstrate that any factual enquiry was conducted by the
competent authority to ascertain whether the petitioner’s elder brother was
actually residing with the petitioner or was maintaining a separate household.
There is also no material to indicate that the residential documents produced
by the petitioner were verified, that statements of relevant persons were
recorded, any local enquiry was conducted, or any other objective exercise
was undertaken for determining the disputed question of separate residence
and dependency.
The impugned orders, therefore, proceed substantially on an
assumption rather than on an objectively verified factual finding. Merely
observing that the petitioner had failed to establish separate residence,
without considering the documents produced by him and without conducting
any enquiry where the factual position was disputed, does not constitute
proper consideration of the petitioner’s claim. The authority was required to
deal with the material placed before it and record reasons as to why such
material was insufficient, unreliable or otherwise incapable of establishing
the petitioner’s claim. Such exercise is conspicuously absent from the
impugned orders.
In the present case, the petitioner’s elder brother has a separate family
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
9 WP-30237-2025
and the petitioner has specifically asserted that he has been residing

separately for more than ten years. The petitioner has also produced
documentary material in support of the said assertion. In these
circumstances, the competent authority could not have rejected the
petitioner’s claim merely by reiterating the fact of the elder brother’s
Government employment. The question whether the elder brother was
residing separately and whether his employment had any bearing upon the
financial dependency of the petitioner’s family required a proper factual
determination.
It is also relevant that the petitioner had already been appointed on
compassionate grounds vide order dated 10.06.2024 and had joined his duties
pursuant thereto. The subsequent cancellation of the appointment has serious
civil consequences. Therefore, once the earlier cancellation order was set
aside by this Court and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, the
competent authority was required to undertake a genuine and meaningful
reconsideration of the entire matter and not merely repeat the earlier
conclusion in a different form. Compliance with the requirement of granting
an opportunity of hearing cannot be treated as an empty formality; the
representation and material submitted by the petitioner were required to be
considered in their true perspective and a reasoned decision was required to
be taken thereon.
The impugned orders, when tested on the aforesaid parameters, do not
disclose due and proper consideration of the material placed by the
petitioner. The findings recorded therein are not supported by any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24219
10 WP-30237-2025
independent enquiry or objective material and, therefore, cannot be

sustained. The impugned orders dated 31.12.2024 and 14.05.2025 are
accordingly found to be unsustainable in law. Consequently, the present
petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated
31.12.2024 (Annexure P/10) and 14.05.2025 (Annexure P/11) passed by
respondent No.2–District Education Officer, District Dewas, are hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate
order for restoration/grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner
within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:00:07