Satyendra Rangire vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
1 WP-16421-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16421 of 2018
SATYENDRA RANGIRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Bhole Nath Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Rao - Panel Lawyer for State.
Ms. Gunjan Naik - Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(A) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned
order dated 21.06.2018 contained in Annexure P/5
passed by the Respondent No. 4. (The Adheekshan
Yantri, (Pareekshan/Sanchar), M. P. Power
Management Company Limited Shakti Bhawan,
Rampur, Jabalpur, M.P.)
(B) This hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
command/direct the respondents to grant the
compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
2 WP-16421-2018
place of his late father with all consequential and
monetary benefits in the interest of justice.
(C) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of this case, along with the
cost of this writ petition also be awarded."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was
appointed in the respondent-department in May, 1989. Unfortunately, he
died on 26.03.2010 while in service. After the death of his father, the
petitioner, being eligible and qualified for appointment on compassionate
grounds, submitted an application along with the requisite documents before
the competent authority. The petitioner claims to have submitted
applications/representations dated 25.05.2010, 16.09.2013 and 11.06.2018.
The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was, however, rejected
by the impugned order dated 21.06.2018 on the ground that, under the
prevailing rules/policy, compassionate appointment could not be granted in
the circumstances of the petitioner's case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 21.06.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the policy
guidelines/circulars governing compassionate appointment. It is contended
that the petitioner is eligible, competent and qualified for appointment on
compassionate grounds and that his claim ought to have been considered in
accordance with the rules and policy applicable to such cases. It is further
submitted that the respondents acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner's
claim merely by observing that compassionate appointment was not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
3 WP-16421-2018
permissible under the prevailing rules. According to the petitioner, the
respondents kept his claim pending for a considerable period and thereafter
rejected it without properly considering his eligibility and the applicable
policy provisions. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to
compassionate appointment in view of the circumstances prevailing in his
family after the death of the sole breadwinner. It is contended that denial of
appointment has caused serious hardship to the petitioner and his family and,
therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the
attention of this Court to the Policy of Madhya Pradesh Transmission
Company Limited, Jabalpur which reads as under:-
1-
अनुकंपा िनयु
क प रथितय
"1.1
म यदेश पावर ांसिमशन कंपनी के ऐसे कािम क जो "क
(1)
म यदेश रा #य
व$ुत मंडल के ऐसे कािम क जो रा #य शासन क
10.04.2012
अिधसूचना "दनांक के *ारा म यदेश पावर ांसिमशन
कंपनी को अंितम +प से अंत रत एवं आमेिलत हुए ह / एवं कपनी म 0 ह 1
(2)
काय रत ह / या म. . पावर ांसिमशन कंपनी *ारा िनयु कंपनी के
10.04:2012
कािम क क कंपनी म 0 सेवाकाल म 0 अथवा उसके प 4ात
,
मृ 6यु हो के आि 8त को कं "डका ३ म 0 व ण त पा ;ता क शत < के
हुई
अनुसार अनुकंपा िनयु
द 1 जा सकेगी।
1.2( ) 15.11.2000
अ ऐसे कािम क जनक मृ 6यु "दनांक के प 4ात्
10.04.2012
"क@तु के पूव न य देश रा #य
व$ुत मंडल के पारेषण
/ , ,
संकाय कंपनी का काय करते समय आक मक टना
व$ुत टना
दुघ दुघ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
4 WP-16421-2018
हमलावर *ारा ह 6या अथवा काय करते समय वाहन दुघ टना के कारण
3 "
हो. के आि 8त को कं "डका के अंतग त व ण त पा ;ता को शत < के
हुई
अनुसार अनुकंपा िनयु
द 1 जा सकेगी।
1.2 ( ) ,
ब ांसिमशन कंपनी के ऐसे कािम क जनक म य देश
रा #य
व$ुत मंडल क अ @य उ EरवतF कंपिनय म 0 ितिनयु
क
अविध म 0 मृ 6यु होती है. उनके आि 8त को भी अनुकंपा िनयु
क नीित
के ावधानानुसार पा ;ता होगी।
-
उपरो नीित म 0 आक मक टना से अिभ ाय होगा "क
दुघ
काय करते समय हुई दुघ उना जो कािम क क मृ 6यु का कारण हो
,
अथवा जससे मृ 6यु का रत हो यथा पारेषण लाईन एवं अित उ Iचदाब
/
उपके @J के िनमा ण रखरखाव के दौरान िगरने या पारेषण लाईन के
,
टायर अ @य पाट या उपकरण आ "द के िगरने या खराब होने के कारण
अथवा पारेषण लाईन के +ट सव M म 0 हुई दुघ टना ।
,
Nयूट1 के दौरान सभी कार क वाहन दुघ टना चाहे वाहन
/
मंडल कंपनी का हो या ायवेट तथा टना कंपनी Oे; के अंतग त हो
दुघ हुई
, , "
अथवा Nयूट1 पर गए अ @य; थान पर कािम क क मृ 6यु होने पर।
5. It is further submitted by her that Policy contains a specific clause
providing that the dependants of a deceased employee are entitled to
consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds only in cases
where the employee dies while on duty due to an accident, electrocution,
assault by miscreants, or a motor vehicle accident in the course of
employment. It is further submitted that, since the case of the petitioner does
not fall within any of the aforesaid categories, the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment was duly considered and rightly rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
5 WP-16421-2018
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on
the ground that the deceased employee died a natural death in the ordinary
course and not on account of any accident or other contingency while
discharging his duties with the respondent/company. The petitioner has
neither pleaded nor placed any documents on record to establish that his
father died due to an accident, electrocution, assault, or any other incident
while in the course of employment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does
not fall within any of the contingencies contemplated under the Policy
governing compassionate appointment, and no interference with the
impugned order is called for.
8. In the absence of any material on record, this Court cannot hold that
the death of the deceased employee occurred due to electrocution, an
accident, or any other contingency contemplated under the Policy. Therefore,
the impugned order passed by the respondent is in consonance with the
Policy and does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
9. Accordingly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67863
6 WP-16421-2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04