Smt. Geeta Bai vs South Easten Col. Feeld Ltd.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
1 WP-21734-2018
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. 21734 of 2018
SMT. GEETA BAI
Versus
SOUTH EASTEN COL. FEELD LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Gunjan Naik - Advocate for the
respondents.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"A. ( )
माननीय उ च यायालय से बन ाथना है क उप बंधक का
: / / ( )/
बजुर उप े के ारा जार  कये गये प  कमांक बउ उ े उ  का
2015/ 10016-17 19/20-11-2015
दनांक को विध एवं त (य के बपरत

एवं अनैसिग क तथा अनुिचत *प से जार  होना घो षत कये जाने क -

महती कृपा क - जावे तथा उ / प  को िनर 0त कया जाकर यािचकाकता
1
1मांक 2ीमती गीता बाई के पित 0व. 2ी रामदास जो क साउथ ई 5न

कोल फ -78स िलिमटेड के बजुर कालर  उप े म ; सेवारत कम चार रहे
17.09.2007
ह < =जनक- सेवािनवृ > के पूव  ह  दनांक को मृ @यु हो चुक - है.
1 /
=जससे बभागीय िनयमानुसार यािचकाकता  कमांक आि 2त प Cी
1 3,
2ीमती गीता बाई को उ >रवाद कमांक ता साउथ ई 5न कोल

फ -78स िलिमटेड से अनुक Dपा िनयु / के आधार पर जी वकोपाजन हेतु

नौकर  दलाये जाने क - महती कृपा क - जावे।
B.
माननीय उ च यायालय से बन ाथना है क 2ी रामदास क -
17.09.2007
मृ @यु दनांक से लेकर यािचकाकता  के आवेदन दनांक
16.11.2015
तक रोजगार के बदले िनयमानुसार आिथ क मुआवजा के
15722 1525034 //
प म ; ितमाह पये क - दर से कुल *पये श HदI म
// 1 3
प Jह लाख पचीस हजार च Lितस *पये उ >रवाद कमांक ता से

यािचकाकता  2ीमती गीता बाई को दलाये जाने क - महती कृपा क - जावे।
C.
माननीय उ च यायालय से बन ाथना है क यािचकाकता

2ीमती गीता बाई के ारा बंधन के सम  अनुक Dपा िनयु / दान
16.11.2015
कये जाने हेतु दनांक को आवेदन प  0तुत कया गया था

क तु बंधन के ारा यािचकाकता  को अनुक Dपा िनयु / दान नह ं
16.11.2015
कया गया =जससे दनांक से अनुक Dपा िनयु / ाM होने
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
2 WP-21734-2018

क - अविध तक का यािचकाकता  2ीमती गीता बाई को ितमाह पूरा
16.11.2015
बेतन क - समतु 7य रािश एवं िनयमानुसार उ / दनांक से

मोशन से संबंिधत अ य लाभ भी ितकर स हत एस.ई.सी.एल.
1 3
उ >रवाद 1मांक से से दलाये जाने क - महती कृपा क - जावे।
D.
माननीय उ च यायालय से बन ाथना है क यािचकाकता गण

को उ >रवादगण से याय एवं सुर ा दान कये जाने के अनुकम म

तथा याय क - पूित  हेतु जो भी उिचत तीत हो वह सभी सहायता दान

करने क - महती कृपा क - जावे।

2. The petitioners' case, in brief, is that late Shri Ramdas, son of Shri
Saiju, was employed with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Bijuri
Kalri Sub-Area, and died in harness on 17.09.2007. Petitioner No.1, Smt.
Geeta Bai, claims to be his legally wedded wife, whom he married on
12.08.2004 after the death of Smt. Kali Bai (first wife), the mother of
respondent No.6, Smt. Jayanti alias Soni Bai. During his lifetime, late Shri
Ramdas executed an agreement dated 09.12.2005 (annexure P/6)
acknowledging petitioner No.1 as his wife and thereafter took steps to have
her name recorded in his service records; he also submitted Form-F dated
28.06.2006 nominating her for gratuity. After his death, petitioner No.1
approached the management for release of his service benefits and
compassionate appointment, but was advised to obtain a succession
certificate, resulting in Succession Case No.5/2009, which was dismissed on
23.02.2012. In subsequent gratuity proceedings, petitioner No.1's claim was
allowed by the Appellate Authority on 27.05.2013 and the gratuity was paid
to her. Thereafter, on 16.11.2015, petitioner No.1 again applied for
compassionate appointment and for provident fund and pensionary benefits;
however, the management again insisted upon a succession certificate.
Respondent No.6 subsequently instituted Succession Case No.17/2015, in
which petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were impleaded, but the same was dismissed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
3 WP-21734-2018
order dated 06.01.2017 on the ground of res judicata, along with the

petitioners' counterclaim. The petitioners contend that the departmental
records and nomination form recognize petitioner No.1 as the wife of late
Shri Ramdas, whereas respondent No.5, Smt. Chandravati, is not his legally
wedded wife or dependent and respondent No.6, having married in 2014, is
no longer dependent upon him. Petitioner No.1, being unemployed and
without any independent source of livelihood and having the responsibility
of maintaining her minor daughter, therefore seeks consideration for
compassionate appointment and release of the remaining service and
pensionary benefits in accordance with law.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner has not produced any succession certificate or other valid
document establishing her status as the legal heir/dependent of the deceased
employee. In the absence of such document, the entitlement of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment cannot be verified. Compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only after fulfillment
of the prescribed conditions. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to
be rejected for want of necessary proof of succession/legal heirship.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner had earlier
preferred a succession case No.5/2009 for the grant of a succession
certificate, which was rejected by the JMFC Kotma, District Anuppur vide
order dated 23.02.2012. Thereafter, again a succession case was preferred by
the respondent no.6, in which petitioners were also made parties, which was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
4 WP-21734-2018
also rejected vide order 6.1.2017 (Annexure P-24) on the ground that it is

barred by the principles of res judicata. Thus, in the considered opinion of
this Court, petitioner No.1 has failed to establish her undisputed status as the
legal heir/dependent of late Shri Ramdas. No succession certificate or other
competent document has been produced in support of her claim, and the
status of the parties remains disputed.
6. So far as the the payment of gratuity to petitioner No.1 or the entries
in the service records are concerned, they do not, by themselves, create a
right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is not a
matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the applicable
rules and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.
7. Further, the deceased employee died in the year 2007, whereas the
claim for compassionate appointment was made in 2015. Such a belated
claim cannot be treated as a continuing right to compassionate appointment.
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
5 WP-21734-2018
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
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".

9. 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:-
“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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
6 WP-21734-2018
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
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
7 WP-21734-2018
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
8 WP-21734-2018
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,
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
9 WP-21734-2018
(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. ”

10. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
10 WP-21734-2018
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
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)

8. The question whether the petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased
employee or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Applying the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex court in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered
opinion of this court, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioners have
failed to establish any enforceable right to such appointment.
10. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. The
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67866
11 WP-21734-2018


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:51:19 PM