The Chief General Manager Gwalior Circle Mp vs Rajkumar Parihar
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
1 WA-3557-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
th
ON THE 7 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3557 of 2025
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GWALIOR CIRCLE MP AND
OTHERS
Versus
RAJKUMAR PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri R.B.S. Tomar - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This is writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2205 has been filed by
the appellants against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.13546/2022.
2 . The controversy revolves in a very narrow compass, therefore,
detailed consideration of factual matrix of the case is not required. The elder
brother of respondent filed an application for appointment on compassionate
ground. The said application was rejected by the respondents by order dated
10.07.2017. Thereafter, the elder brother of respondent never challenged that
order. However, mother of respondent filed an application for grant of
appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent. Writ Petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
2 WA-3557-2025
No.4523/2017 was filed seeking direction for respondents to consider the
case of respondent and to appoint the respondent as per qualification and
eligibility required for the post. In the said writ petition, a ground was raised
by respondent that respondents have never filed an application for
appointment on compassionate ground. This Court by order dated
17.09.2019 came to a conclusion that the application which was sent by the
mother of respondent was received back with an endorsement that address is
incomplete. Therefore, the contention of appellants that respondent has never
moved any application for appointment on compassionate ground was
accepted. However, the respondent was granted liberty to move a fresh
application for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the
respondent moved fresh application which was rejected by respondent by
order dated 20.02.2020 filed as Annexure P/2 alongwith the writ petition.
The reasons for rejection of application was that respondent has not passed
CPCT examination, therefore, three years time was granted to him to acquire
necessary qualification so that further action can be taken. It appears that
without making an effort to obtain minimum qualification, the respondent
preferred Writ Petition No.13546/2022 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the
case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of
his father as per the earlier policy prevailing before the policy
dated 9.7.2018 as the petitioner is eligible as per the old policy.
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
3 WA-3557-2025
3 . However, it appear that during the course of arguments, it was
submitted by counsel for respondents that although the respondent has not
passed the CPCT examination, but the appellants must consider his case for
the post for which CPCT examination is not required. It is not out of place to
mention here that while rejecting the application for appointment on
compassionate ground filed by elder brother of respondent, the appellants
had taken a specific stand that no post of Class IV employee is available. The
application filed by elder brother of respondent was rejected in the year
2017. Thus, learned Single Judge was of the view that although in the year
2017, there was no post of Peon available with the appellants, but appellants
must reconsider the application filed by respondent for his appointment on
Class IV post and accordingly, issued the following directions:-
"11. The respondents have placed on record the document filed as
Annexure R/7 to show that Class-IV posts are not available in the
respondent-Company. This was of the year 2017. Thus, this
petition is disposed of with the observation that if Class-1V posts
are now available in the Company and the petitioner satisfies the
necessary requirement of the policy of year 2018, his case may be
considered for grant of appointment on any Class-1V post."
4 . Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is
submitted by counsel for appellants that respondent had never considered for
his appointment on a Class IV post. It is further submitted that neither he
made any application in that regard to the appellants nor he raised this
ground in the writ petition.
5. So far as the question of non-availability of Class IV post in the
year 2017 is concerned, it was a relevant factor for rejection of application
filed by elder brother of respondent and elder brother of respondent never
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
4 WA-3557-2025
assailed the said order. It is further submitted that father of respondent had
expired in the year 2005 and 21 long years have passed. Therefore, the very
purpose for appointment on compassionate ground has already been
frustrated.
6 . Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge should not
have issued the direction to the appellants to consider the case of respondent
for a post for which CPCT examination is not required.
7. Per contra, the writ appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent. It is submitted that appellants have never raised an objection
with regard to delay in seeking an appointment on compassionate ground.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9 . The undisputed fact is that father of respondent has expired in
harness on 08.12.2005. The application filed by elder brother was rejected in
the year 2017. The elder brother of appellant never assailed that order. After
rejection the application of elder brother, it appears that mother of petitioner
moved an application for appointment of petitioner on compassionate
ground. This Court by order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition
No.4523/2017 had granted liberty to the respondent to move an application
for appointment on compassionate ground. However, by order dated
20.02.2020 passed by respondents, the consideration of application of
respondent was deferred with a direction to the respondent to pass CPCT
examination within a period of three years.
10. Furthermore, there is nothing in the writ petition to show that
whether the petitioner had ever tried to pass CPCT examination or not. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
5 WA-3557-2025
not his case that an appointment on compassionate ground may be given on a
post for which CPCT examination is not required. However, learned Single
Judge by relying upon the order passed in the year 2017 by which
application filed by elder brother of respondent was rejected, has held that
although there was no post for Class IV employee in the year 2017, but there
is nothing on record to show that even today the post of Class IV employee
is not vacant, but before giving such a direction, the learned Single Judge
should have considered as to whether the delay of 21 years after the death of
the father of respondent has frustrated the very purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground or not? Appointment on compassionate ground is not
an alternative mode for recruitment. It is an emergent provision to
provide solace and financial help to the family member of the deceased
employee.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and others reported in 2025 (5) SCC 712 has held as
under:-
"32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:-
32.1. 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 b over the sudden
financial crisis.
32.2. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
6 WA-3557-2025
crisis.
32.3. 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.
32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep
such a case pending for years.
32.5. 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.
33. 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 breadearner 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 breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is
also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters
concerning g compassionate appointment because on failure to do so,
the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment 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 h compassionate appointment has been made out for
consideration.
37. 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. v. M.R.
Meher15. In the said case, it was regarded as b 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.
38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal this Court restated the principle
articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words: (SCC
pp. 594-95, para 24)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
7 WA-3557-2025
"24.... 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-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."
39. 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 v. State of Haryana; NDMC v. Pan
Singh.
40. Further, simply because the respondent-writ petitioners submitted
their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it
cannot be said that they diligently pursued 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 v. Shiv Charan Singh
Bhandari, wherein the following observations were made: (SCC p.
184, para 19)"
12. Thus, where the family members of deceased employee have
successfully survived for considerable long time, then it is a relevant factor
to hold that the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has
frustrated.
13. Under these circumstances, in absence of any application to the
appellants for appointment on a post for which CPCT examination is not
required, in absence of any specific plea in the writ petition seeking his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26680
8 WA-3557-2025
appointment on Class IV post and in absence of any explanation to
distinguish the law down by Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata
Tiwari (supra), learned Single Judge should not have issued the direction to
the appellants to consider the case of respondent for his appointment on
compassionate ground.
1 4 . Accordingly, order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition
No.13546/2022 is hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by respondent is
hereby dismissed. Writ appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Rashid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:36:50 PM