Umesh Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
1 WP-5211-2019
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. 5211 of 2019
UMESH KUMAR DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Prasad Dubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh Kaurav - Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. To issue a writ of direction to the respondents grant
compassionate appointment or in lieu of one side payment of
amount as per policy of the Government, quashing the impugned
order dated 29.06.2012 (Annex.P/5).
B. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition
be also awarded."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be a
dependent/legal heir of late Shri Govind Prasad Dwivedi, who was serving as
a Teacher in the School Education Department and died in harness on
01.08.2003. The petitioner submitted several representations seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
2 WP-5211-2019
compassionate appointment and, alternatively, payment of a lump-sum

amount in lieu of such appointment. A recommendation was also made by
the Labour Minister for his appointment as Peon. However, the District
Education Officer, vide order dated 29.06.2012, rejected the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment as well as payment of the amount in
lieu thereof. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.
No.19870/2012, which was disposed of by the Mega Lok Adalat on
13.12.2014, but despite subsequent representations and reminders, the
respondents allegedly failed to take any action. Hence, the present writ
petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order and a
direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment or,
alternatively, the applicable lump-sum amount as per the Government
policy.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is the grandson of late Shri Govind Prasad, who was serving as a
Teacher in the respondent-Department and died in harness on 01.08.2003.
The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment; however, his
claim was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure-P/5). Thereafter,
the petitioner preferred W.P. No.19870 of 2012, which was disposed of by
the Lok Adalat vide order dated 13.12.2014, with a direction to the
respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the
petitioner. It is submitted that, despite the said order, several
representations and reminders submitted by the petitioners have not been
considered or decided by the respondents. It is further submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
3 WP-5211-2019
grandfather of the petitioner had executed a Will in his favour, which has

been filed as Annexure P/9. On the strength thereof, the petitioner claims
entitlement to the terminal dues of the deceased employee as well as
compassionate appointment.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the
reply filed on their behalf, submitted that the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment was duly considered and rejected, as the
petitioner's father was working as a daily wager and his uncle was already in
Government service. It is, therefore, submitted that, in terms of the
applicable policy, since one of the dependents of the deceased employee was
already in employment, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate
appointment. Accordingly, his claim was rejected vide the impugned order
dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P/5). It is further submitted that the petitioner's
claim had already been considered and rejected vide the aforesaid order,
which was not set aside by this Court in the subsequent writ petition. The
order passed in the said writ petition merely directed the respondents to
consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner. Since the
petitioner's claim had already been considered in accordance with the
applicable policy, no further relief can be granted to him and therefore prays
for dismissal of the present petition.
5. ​ Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the application
submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide
order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P/5). Though the petitioner challenged the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
4 WP-5211-2019
said order by filing W.P. No.19870 of 2012, the said petition was disposed

of by the Lok Adalat with a direction to the respondents to consider and
decide the representation of the petitioner. It appears that the order dated
29.06.2012 rejecting the petitioner's claim was not brought to the notice of
the Lok Adalat and, therefore, no finding was recorded with regard to the
legality or otherwise of the said order. The order dated 29.06.2012, thus, was
never set aside and attained finality.
7. It is also not disputed that, under the applicable policy, where any
dependent of the deceased Government employee is already in Government
service, the other dependents are not entitled to compassionate appointment.
In the present case, the petitioner is the grandson of the deceased employee
and seeks to claim entitlement on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by
his grandfather. However, the execution of a Will, by itself, cannot confer
any right to compassionate appointment contrary to the applicable
policy. Since the dependents of the deceased employee were already in
employment, the petitioner had no occasion or entitlement to seek
compassionate appointment on the basis of the said Will. His claim had
already been considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order
dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, in the earlier writ petition, this
Court merely directed consideration of the petitioner's representation; the
order dated 29.06.2012 was neither quashed nor set aside. Consequently, no
fresh cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner so as to revive the
claim already rejected by the competent authority.
8. The present petition has been filed in the year 2019, whereas the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
5 WP-5211-2019
impugned order was passed on 29.06.2012 and the earlier writ petition was

disposed of on 13.12.2014. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court
after considerable lapse of time.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Steel Authority of India Limited v.
Gouri Devi, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 531, while considering the issue of
delay and laches in seeking compassionate appointment, in paragraphs 10,
11 and 12, has held as under:-
"10. As held by this Court in the case of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh , (2019) 6 SCC 774
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/dependent of the deceased
employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on
compassionate ground.
11. In the case of State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed
Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
6 WP-5211-2019
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 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 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. Present appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs".
10. 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:-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
7 WP-5211-2019
“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 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
8 WP-5211-2019
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 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
9 WP-5211-2019
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 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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
10 WP-5211-2019
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-
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
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. ”

11. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
11 WP-5211-2019
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 :

"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)."

1 2 . 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67889
12 WP-5211-2019
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)
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the
fact that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was already
considered and rejected vide order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P/5), which
was never quashed or set aside, coupled with the fact of considerable delay
in approaching this Court, no case for interference is made out. The direction
issued in the earlier writ petition was confined only to consideration of the
petitioner's representation and did not revive or confer any right in his favour
to claim compassionate appointment. Moreover, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claim for compassionate appointment
cannot be entertained after an inordinate lapse of time.
14. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits and also suffering
from delay and laches, is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
julie

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 05-09-2026
12:54:04