Suraj Sagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
1
WP-4352-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 4352 of 2019
SURAJ SAGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque with Shri Amin Khan- Advocates for the
respondent [INT].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18-09-2026
Pronounced on : 15-10-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Heard on I.A. No.1929/2020 , an application for intervention is
taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief (s):-
“7.1 That, order impugned annexure P/1 dated 18-02-2019
passed by the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, the respondents kindly directed continue petitioner
perform his duty on the post of Dawasaj.
7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
2
WP-4352-2019
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and possesses all the requisite
qualifications for appointment to the post of Dawasaj. The petitioner's
grandmother, Smt. Krishna Devi, was a Government employee and was
working as a Dai in the Government Ayurved Dispensary, Mehgaon,
District Bhind. The petitioner's father, Late Shri Veer Singh, died in the
year 2008 when the petitioner was only 12 years old. Thereafter, the
petitioner, his widowed mother, two sisters and younger brother were
living with and were entirely dependent upon Late Smt. Krishna Devi
for their survival. In view of such dependency, the petitioner's
grandmother nominated the petitioner in her service records for all
purposes.
4. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Smt.
Krishna Devi died in harness on 06.12.2015. Being a dependent family
member, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate
appointment on 09.06.2016. The said application was supported by the
consent of the petitioner's widowed mother, who could not apply herself
as she was not educationally qualified. The Screening Committee
considered the application in light of the State Government policy dated
29.09.2014 and recommended the petitioner for compassionate
appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Dawasaj vide order dated 29.08.2016 for a probation period of three
years, which he successfully completed. In compliance with the
appointment order, the petitioner joined his duties at Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
3
WP-4352-2019
Ayurvedic Dispensary, Debhai, District Datia, on 30.08.2016 and
continued to work and receive salary thereafter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis
of a false complaint, a show-cause notice dated 12.02.2018 was issued
to him, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days
regarding the allegation that he did not fall within the definition of a
dependent member under Clauses 2.1 to 2.7 of the policy dated
29.09.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply through registered AD on
26.02.2018, specifically stating that his grandmother had nominated him
in her service records for all purposes and that the Screening Committee
had considered all the relevant documents before recommending his
appointment. The petitioner was also called to Bhopal on 10.05.2018 for
recording his statement, wherein he explained the circumstances relating
to the death of his father and the fact that the petitioner and his family
were living with and dependent upon his grandmother.
It is submitted that despite the aforesaid reply and statement, the
Divisional Ayush Officer passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2019
cancelling the petitioner's appointment. Learned counsel submits that the
said order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply, without
providing proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting any
formal enquiry. It is further submitted that cancellation of the
appointment of a fourth-class employee amounts to a major penalty, and
the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed
under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. There is also clear non-application of mind on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
4
WP-4352-2019
authorities, as the show-cause notice was issued by Respondent No.2,
whereas the impugned order cancelling the appointment was passed by
Respondent No.3 without issuing any independent notice to the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the object
of the policy dated 29.09.2014 is to provide compassionate appointment
to the family of a deceased Government employee. Clauses 2.5 and 2.7
of the said policy provide that where both the husband and wife are
deceased, an adopted son or any nominated member is eligible for
appointment. Since the petitioner was nominated by his grandmother in
her service records and was living as her dependent, his appointment
was lawful and was made after following the prescribed procedure. It is
submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner
prays that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction be issued for quashing the impugned order dated 18.02.2019
passed by Respondent No.3. It is further prayed that the respondents be
directed to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Dawasaj and
grant all other appropriate reliefs, including costs.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the
impugned order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) has rightly been
passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, as the petitioner, being the son of the widow daughter of
the deceased Government servant, does not fall within any of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
5
WP-4352-2019
categories of eligible dependants prescribed under Clauses 2.1 to 2.7 of
the policy issued by the State Government. It is submitted that merely
because the grandmother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Krishna Devi,
had nominated the petitioner in her nomination form, no right to
compassionate appointment accrues in favour of the petitioner contrary
to the provisions of the applicable policy. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment,
but his claim was rightly rejected as compassionate appointment is not a
matter of right and can be granted only to the persons covered by the
policy. The object of the policy is to provide a source of livelihood to
the family of the deceased Government servant, whereas the petitioner,
being the son of the widow daughter, is not an eligible dependent under
the policy. Thus, the respondents have committed no error in passing the
impugned order and the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves
to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the intervener opposed the present petition
and submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has
challenged the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by respondent No.3,
whereby his claim for compassionate appointment on the death of his
grandmother, Smt. Krishna Devi, was rightly rejected after due inquiry
on a complaint. It is submitted that the intervener is the real daughter of
deceased Smt. Krishna Devi and is entitled to raise her grievance
regarding the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the
applicable policy and had obtained the appointment by suppressing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
6
WP-4352-2019
material facts. It is also submitted that a succession suit concerning the
rights of the family members is pending before the competent Court at
Dabra. Therefore, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to
be dismissed.
10. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in the
facts of the present case, the respondents were justified in cancelling the
petitioner's appointment after he had been appointed upon consideration
of his case by the competent authority and had continued in service for
several years.
13. It is true that compassionate appointment is an exception to the
normal rule of recruitment and is governed by the applicable scheme. A
person cannot claim compassionate appointment contrary to the
governing policy. However, the present case has to be examined on its
own facts. The petitioner was not appointed by concealing his
relationship with the deceased employee. His case was placed before the
competent authorities, his circumstances were considered by the
Screening Committee and thereafter the appointment order was
consciously issued. In the present case, the petitioner did not conceal his
relationship with the deceased employee. His relationship with his
grandmother and the circumstances of his family were placed before the
authorities when his application was considered. The Screening
Committee examined his case and recommended his appointment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
7
WP-4352-2019
14. There is no finding in the impugned order that the petitioner
obtained the appointment by producing a false document, practising
fraud or deliberately suppressing any material fact. The respondents'
case is that, on a subsequent examination, the petitioner did not fall
within the category of dependent contemplated under the policy. Thus,
the dispute is not regarding any subsequent misconduct of the petitioner
but regarding the correctness of the decision taken by the authorities at
the time of his appointment. An important aspect of the matter is the
provision contained in the policy dated 29.09.2014 regarding the
selection of a family member for compassionate appointment where the
family members do not give consent to one another. The policy provides
that, in such circumstances, the competent authority is required to
decide the family member to whom appointment should be given. Thus,
the policy itself recognises that disputes or differences among family
members may arise and provides a mechanism for the authority to
examine the claim and take a decision.
15. The Supreme Court in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar,
(2016) 12 SCC 342 , considered a similar issue relating to compassionate
appointment. The appointment in that case was sought to be questioned
after a long period on the ground that the employee did not fall within
the definition of dependent under the applicable policy. The Supreme
Court noticed that the relevant facts were known to the authorities when
the appointment was made and that there was no fraud, false declaration
or suppression on the part of the employee. In those circumstances, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
8
WP-4352-2019
Supreme Court did not approve termination of the employee after such a
long period.
16. The principle laid down in Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra) is
applicable to the present case. Here also, the relevant facts were before
the authorities when the petitioner's case was considered. The Screening
Committee recommended his appointment and the competent authority
thereafter issued the appointment order. The petitioner joined service
and continued to work.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra) held as
under;
"11. Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the
case and having regard to the totality of the circumstances,
we are of the considered view that the State was not
justified in terminating the appellant's services. In other
words, the ground on which the appellant's services were
terminated by the State after a period of 15 years of the
appellant's appointment does not appear to be well founded.
This we say for the following reasons:
11.1. Firstly, the appellant and wife of the deceased at the
time of seeking compassionate appointment did not conceal
any fact nor filed any false or incorrect
document/declaration. On the other hand, both of them
disclosed their true family relations and conditions
prevailing in the deceased's family on affidavit.
11.2. Secondly, the appellant, who is the brother of the
deceased, undertook to maintain the family of the deceased
in the event of his securing the compassionate appointment
and he accordingly also gave such undertaking to the State.
11.3. Thirdly, there was no one in the family of the
deceased to claim compassionate appointment except the
appellant who, as mentioned above, was the close relative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
9
WP-4352-2019
of the deceased i.e. real younger brother and used to live
with the deceased. He was otherwise eligible to claim such
appointment being major, educated and only male member
in the family.
11.4. Fourthly, the appellant after securing the employment
throughout maintained the family of the deceased in all
respects for the last more than 15 years and he is continuing
to do so.
12. In the light of aforementioned reasons, which rightly
persuaded the State to grant compassionate appointment to
the appellant, we do not find any justification on the part of
the State to dig out the appellant's case after 15 years of his
appointment and terminate his services on the ground that
as per the State policy, the appellant did not fall within the
definition of the expression “dependant of deceased” to
claim compassionate appointment.
13. The fact that the appellant was the younger brother of
the deceased was within the knowledge of the State.
Similarly, the State was aware that the brother does not fall
within the definition of “dependant” at the relevant time
and still the State authorities obtained the undertaking from
the appellant that he would maintain the family of the
deceased once given the appointment.
14. In our considered view, the aforesaid facts would
clearly show that it was a conscious decision taken by the
State for giving an appointment to the appellant for the
benefit of the family members of the deceased who were
facing financial hardship due to sudden demise of their
breadearner. The appellant being the only close relative of
the deceased could be given the appointment in the
circumstances prevailing in the family. In our view, it was a
right decision taken by the State as a welfare State to help
the family of the deceased at the time of need of the family.
15. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there
was no justification on the part of the State to wake up after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
10
WP-4352-2019
the lapse of 15 years and terminate the services of the
appellant on such ground. In any case, we are of the view
that whether it was a conscious decision of the State to give
appointment to the appellant as we have held above or a
case of mistake on the part of the State in giving
appointment to the appellant which now as per the State
was contrary to the policy as held by the learned Single
Judge, the State by their own conduct having condoned
their lapse due to passage of time of 15 years, it was too
late on the part of the State to have raised such ground for
cancelling the appellant's appointment and terminating his
services. It was more so because the appellant was not
responsible for making any false declaration nor he
suppressed any material fact for securing the appointment.
The State was, therefore, not entitled to take advantage of
their own mistake if they felt it to be so. The position
would have been different if the appellant had committed
some kind of fraud or manipulation or suppression of
material fact for securing the appointment. As mentioned
above such was not the case of the State.
16. It is for this reason, we are of the view that action on
the part of welfare State in terminating the appellant's
service on such ground cannot be countenanced. We,
therefore, disapprove the action taken by the State.
17. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the
appeal, set aside the impugned orders [Mohd. Zamil
Ahmad v. State of Bihar, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 778] ,
[Mohd. Zamil Ahmad v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 5713 of
2006, order dated 8-11-2010 (Pat)] and in consequence
allow the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ
petitioner) and quash the appellant's termination order
dated 23-6-2005 (Annexure P-4 of SLP).
18. As a consequence thereof, the respondent State is
directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all
consequential benefits such as payment of full back wages
payable from the date of termination (23-6-2005) till the
date of reinstatement in service. The appellant is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
11
WP-4352-2019
entitled to claim his seniority and notional promotions as
per the rules. It be fixed accordingly.
19. Let the appellant be reinstated in service within a month
as an outer limit and the arrears of back wages, as directed,
be paid to the appellant within three months by the
respondent State.
20. Cost of this appeal is quantified at Rs 5000 and the
same be paid to the appellant by the respondent State along
with the arrears of back wages."
18. The respondents cannot, after having considered the petitioner's
case and granted him compassionate appointment, seek to cancel the
compassionate appointment after several years on the basis of the very
facts which were available to them at the time of compassionate
appointment, particularly when there is no finding of fraud or deliberate
suppression against the petitioner.
19. The subsequent conduct of the parties is also important. The
impugned order was passed on 18.02.2019. The petitioner immediately
approached this Court and, on 08.03.2019, the operation of the
impugned order was stayed. As a result, the petitioner has continued in
service from 08.03.2019 till the present time. Thus, the petitioner has
remained in service for more than seven years after the interim order
and for approximately ten years from the date of his initial appointment.
The petitioner has, therefore, continued to discharge his duties under the
protection granted by this Court throughout this period.
20. In Union of India v. K.P. Tiwari, (2003) 9 SCC 129 , the Supreme
Court considered the effect of long continuation in service in a case
concerning compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court declined to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
12
WP-4352-2019
disturb the existing position after the employee had remained in service
for a substantial period, keeping in view the consequence of uprooting
the employee from his livelihood.
21. The principle in K.P. Tiwari (supra) is relevant in the present case.
The petitioner has continued in service for more than seven years
pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court. At this stage,
cancellation of his compassionate appointment would unsettle a position
which has continued for several years and would have serious
consequences for the petitioner.
22. The relevant part of order passed in K.P. Tiwari (supra) reads as
under;
“2. The Tribunal in the first instance merely directed to
consider the case of the respondent afresh for
appointment on compassionate grounds in relaxation of
the educational qualification on merits and the matter
was disposed of. Thereafter, the said order was
reviewed by another application when the various
circumstances of the death of the father of the
respondent, the brother being in employment and
living separately not supporting the family of the
respondent, were considered and the matter had been
pending consideration for a long time and in view of
the special circumstances directed that the respondent
be provided with an employment within one month
from the date of the receipt of the order.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings by an
order made on 1-10-1996, the respondent has already
been provided with an employment subject to the result
of these appeals.
4. It is unnecessary in this case to examine either
questions of law or fact arising in the matter. Suffice to
say that the respondent has been appointed now and
has been in service for more than five years. We do not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
13
WP-4352-2019
think, it would be appropriate to disturb that state of
affairs by making any other order resulting in
uprooting the respondent from his livelihood.
23. The fact that the petitioner continued in service under an interim
order does not by itself create a permanent right in his favour. However,
the period of such continuation is a relevant circumstance while
deciding the final relief. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the
petitioner has actually remained in service and discharged his duties for
more than seven years under the protection granted in the present
proceedings.
24. This Court also finds support from its recent decision in Surendra
Singh v. State of M.P., W.P. No.13788 of 2021 , decided on 02.09.2025.
In that case also, compassionate appointment was subsequently
cancelled after a long period. This Court, relying upon the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra),
considered the fact that the relevant circumstances were already within
the knowledge of the authorities at the time of compassionate
appointment and that there was no suppression by the employee. The
Court declined to disturb the compassionate appointment after such a
long period.
25. The same principle deserves to be applied in the present case. The
petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2016 after
consideration of his case by the Screening Committee. He completed his
probation. His appointment was cancelled in 2019. The petitioner
immediately challenged the order and obtained interim protection on
08.03.2019. Since then, he has continuously remained in service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
14
WP-4352-2019
Another important consideration is that there is no finding of fraud,
manipulation or deliberate suppression against the petitioner. The
petitioner had specifically explained his relationship with the deceased
employee and the circumstances in which he and his family were
dependent upon her. These facts were available to the authorities before
the appointment was granted.
26. It is true that nomination in the service records and actual
dependency cannot, by themselves, override an express eligibility
condition under the policy. However, these facts are relevant to the
examination of the petitioner's claim and the decision taken by the
Screening Committee. The Court is not holding that every grandson is
entitled to compassionate appointment. The question is whether the
appointment granted in the particular circumstances of this case could
properly be cancelled after the relevant facts had already been examined
by the authorities and no fraud or deliberate suppression was found. The
objection raised by the intervener also requires consideration. The
intervener is the daughter of the deceased employee and is entitled to
raise any grievance available to her in accordance with law. However,
the present petition concerns the legality of the cancellation of
compassionate appointment. It is not a proceeding to decide succession
to the estate or retiral dues of the deceased employee.
27. So far as the question of dependency is concerned, the petitioner
has stated that after the death of his father, he, along with his widowed
mother, two sisters and younger brother, was living with and dependent
upon his grandmother, Late Smt. Krishna Devi. The petitioner's claim is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
15
WP-4352-2019
supported by the fact that his case was considered by the Screening
Committee and his appointment was recommended on that basis. On the
other hand, there is no material on record to show that the intervener,
being the daughter of the deceased employee, was dependent upon her
mother or that she was maintaining the family of the deceased
employee. Merely because the intervener is the daughter of the deceased
employee, her claim cannot automatically be treated as superior to that
of the petitioner. The question of compassionate appointment is required
to be examined in accordance with the applicable policy and the facts
placed before the competent authority. In the present case, the
petitioner's claim of dependency was considered by the Screening
Committee before his appointment, whereas no material has been
brought on record by the intervener to establish her own dependency
upon the deceased employee.
28. It is also relevant that the interim order dated 08.03.2019, staying
the operation of the impugned cancellation order, has remained in force
during the pendency of this petition. No application for vacating the
interim order has been filed by the intervener. Thus, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner has continued, and he has continued
to discharge his duties during this period. This circumstance, by itself,
does not create an absolute right in favour of the petitioner, but it is a
relevant factor to be considered while deciding the final relief,
particularly when the petitioner has continued in service for several
years under the protection of this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
16
WP-4352-2019
29. Therefore, the present case is not one where the petitioner
obtained compassionate appointment by misrepresentation and the
authorities subsequently discovered the fraud. Rather, the authorities
themselves considered the relevant facts and granted the compassionate
appointment. The subsequent cancellation is based upon a different
interpretation of the petitioner's eligibility under the policy.
30. The Court is conscious of the fact that an appointment contrary to
the governing rules cannot ordinarily be protected merely because some
time has passed. However, the present case involves additional
circumstances: the petitioner's case was considered by the competent
authority; there is no finding of fraud or suppression; he was permitted
to join and complete probation; his appointment was cancelled after a
considerable period; and, immediately thereafter, this Court stayed the
cancellation and he has remained in service for more than seven years.
In these circumstances, the principles laid down in Md. Zamil Ahmed
(supra) and K.P. Tiwari (supra) become relevant. The Court is required
to consider not merely the position existing on the date of the impugned
order but also the subsequent facts which have occurred during the
pendency of the litigation.
31. The Court is therefore of the considered opinion that, in the
peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioner should not be deprived
of his employment at this stage.
32. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 passed by
respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572
17
WP-4352-2019
33. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue
in service on the post of Dawasaj. The interim order dated 08.03.2019
shall stand merged with this final order.
34. The petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service from the
date of his initial appointment dated 29.08.2016. The period during
which the petitioner has continued in service pursuant to the interim
order dated 08.03.2019 shall be treated as continuous service for all
service purposes.
35. Since the petitioner has actually discharged his duties during the
period of his continuation pursuant to the interim order, the competent
authority shall consider and release all the consequential benefits
including monetary benefits admissible to him in accordance with law.
36. It is clarified that the relief granted by this Court is based upon the
peculiar facts of the present case, namely, that the petitioner's case was
considered by the competent authorities before granting compassionate
appointment, the relevant facts were within the knowledge of the
respondents, there is no finding of fraud or suppression against the
petitioner, he completed his probation, and he has continuously
remained in service since 08.03.2019 pursuant to the interim order
passed by this Court.
37. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT )
JUDGE
Vpn/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/15/2026
7:08:35 PM