Compassionate appointments are not inherent rights, necessitating prompt application to address immediate family financial distress after the death of an employee.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction for calling of the entire records from the Respondent authorities pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 (ANNEXURE P-1), passed by the Respondent No.02, 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the son of late Sukhraj Yadav, who was working as Peon-cum-Guard in the Cold Storage of District Marketing Federation Limited, Surajpur. During his service tenure, late Sukhraj Yadav died in harness on 01.04.2000, leaving behind his widow and minor son. At the time of his death, the petitioner was only about four months old. After the demise of the employee, the petitioner’s mother, Saraswati, submitted an application dated 30.05.2001 before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. However, the said application remained pending without any decision. After attaining the age of majority and on completion of the Higher Secondary School Certificate, the petitioner himself submitted an application along with all required documents for grant of compassionate appointment, followed by several representations and reminders, but no decision was taken by the respondents.

3. Aggrieved by the continued inaction, the petitioner filed WPS No.8725/2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2022 directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim within four months. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2022; however, the same was rejected by the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023, leading to the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the circulars governing compassionate appointment. It is undisputed that the petitioner's father died in harness on 01.04.2000 and at that time the circular dated 10.06.1994 was in force, which clearly provides that if a dependent is a minor at the time of death, such dependent shall be entitled to compassionate appointment on attaining majority. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim is fully covered under the prevailing policy. It is submitted that the respondents have completely ignored the binding circular dated 02.02.2006, which specifically mandates that cases of employees who died between 01.11.1997 and 31.10.2000 are to be considered in accordance with the prevailing instructions applicable to undivided Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner’s case squarely falls within the said period, yet the Respondent No.02 has misapplied subsequent policies, rendering the rejection order legally unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel submits that despite clear directions issued by this Court in WPS No.8725/2022 to consider and decide the petiti