Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others – Appellants
Versus
Harpal Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15112 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26798 of 2025]
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Mayur Chaturvedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Seema Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Sunil Prakash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Swaraj Maurya, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mrs. Pratima Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Garg, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compassionate appointment – Policy of compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee, but a structured response of State to ensure that death of an employee does not mark beginning of economic calamity for those left behind.
(2) Compassionate appointment, arising out of death of an employee in harness, operates within a distinct framework carved out to address an exceptional situation.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Policy of compassionate appointment is not a concession, largesse or mercy shown to hapless dependents of a deceased employee, but a structured response of State to ensure that death of an employee does not mark beginning of economic calamity for those left behind – Narrow or mechanical construction of rules governing compassionate appointment cannot be permitted to override welfare-oriented purpose of scheme – Where a procedural rigidity ceases to advance humanitarian intent of policy and instead operates as an obstacle to its effective implementation, such a procedure must be construed liberally to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at altar of technicality – It is incumbent upon both concerned government departments and Courts to adopt a humane and purposive approach, ensuring that spirit of scheme prevails over strict or pedantic readings of its procedural stipulations – Procedures and technicalities in welfare schemes are meant to provide structure, not to become cracks through which most vulnerable slip – When interpretation widens those cracks instead of narrowing them, wall ceases to protect and begins to endanger. (Paras 11, 17 and 18)
(B) Service Law – Compassionate appointment – Compassionate appointment, arising out of death of an employee in harness, operates within a distinct framework carved out to address an exceptional situation – Such appointments are made against posts earmarked under compassionate appointment scheme and do not trench upon vacancies meant for regular recruitment or for candidates belonging to other categories – In absence of any demonstrable prejudice to similarly situated candidates or encroachment upon rights of others, direction to consider appointment of Respondent no. 1 under said scheme cannot be said to violate either mandate of equality under Article 14 or guarantee of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16 of Constitution of India – Compassionate appointment, being a narrowly tailored welfare measure, stands on a distinct footing and does not militate against principles governing open competition in public employment as appellants have sought to make out – Both Single and Division Bench of High Court rightly directed competent authority to consider case of Respondent no. 1 for compassionate appointment to a lower post (Class-IV), which does not require CPCT qualification – Order passed in Writ Appeal upheld. (Paras 13, 19 and 21)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment, order dated 24th January 2025 passed by a Single Bench of High Court in Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 was upheld whereby Single Bench had directed competent authorities to sympathetically consider compassionate appointment of Harpal Singh, Respondent no. 1, to a lower post (Class-IV) subject to his willingness to serve in such post.
Findings of Court:
Respondent no. 1 is not seeking a “second” or fresh compassionate appointment. Instead, relief sought is merely a downward adjustment to a Class IV post, which is analogous to a reallocation within same establishment and framework to preserve object of social welfare scheme. Appellants’ reliance on Clause 13.1 is misplaced and reflects an unduly literal interpretation divorced from context and purpose, especially where termination would defeat very purpose for which appointment was granted.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. compassionate appointment eligibility criteria (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 9)
2. humanitarian principles in compassionate appointments (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. reasoning for considering lower posts (Para 13 , 15 , 16)
4. arguments against the respondent's claims (Para 14 , 19)
5. final decision on appeal and directive (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Civil Appeal has been preferred by the Managing Director, M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th April 2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2025.

3. By the impugned judgment, the order dated 24th January 2025 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 36707 of 2024 was upheld whereby the Single Bench had directed the competent authorities to sympathetically consider the compassionate appointment of Harpal Singh, the Respondent no. 1, to a lower post (Class-IV) subject to his willingness to serve in such post.

4. A reference to the facts in brief will facilitate appreciating the issue involved. The issue pertains to the claim of the Respondent no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground. The Respondent no. 1 is the son of Late Shri Ramjilal Kushwah, who died in harness on 28th February 2019, while serving as a Peon in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alampur, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.

5. Thereafter, in accordance with the policy governing compassionate appointment, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide Memorandum No. C-3-12/2013/1/3 dated 29th September 2014, the Respondent no. 1 was sanctioned appointment on compassionate ground to a Class-III post, namely Assistant Grade-III, in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena, as per sanction order issued by the Additional Director (Personnel), M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board, on 26th August 2020, which was followed by the appointment order dated 11th September 2020 issued by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena.

6. However, it merits emphasis that as per Clause 6.5 of the above-mentioned Government Memorandum dated 29th September 2014, an appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III was conditional, as the concerned candidate had to clear the Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) within three years of joining service. The afore-mentioned Clause 6.5 is reproduced hereunder:

Assistant Grade-3, 3 years time will be given for passing Computer Diploma and Computer Typing Certificate Exam from the recognized institute.

period of 1 year may be further extended by the Appointing Authority.

7. In consonance with the above Clause, the appointment order of the Respondent no. 1, dated 11th September 2020, expressly stipulated that he is required to acquire the requisite computer qualifications within a period of three years. This caveat was incorporated in Conditions No. 15 and 16 of the appointment order, which lie at the heart of the present litigation and are reproduced hereunder:

within a period of 3 years from the institution recognized from the Government.

16. It shall be mandatory to pass Computer Examination within 3 years from an institution among following recognized institutions along with passing Computer Typing Proficiency Certificate Examination from a recognized institut