Compassionate appointment should be governed by the policy prevailing at the time of the employee's death, and the rejection of one dependent's application due to lack of qualification does not bar another eligible dependent from seeking appointment to ensure the family's financial support.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, ACJ. 

Appellants- Company have filed this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 30/10/2025 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 17593 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) was disposed of with a direction to the appellants-authority to decide the representation of the respondent (writ petitioner) regarding compassionate appointment and ex gratia payment, based on the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee, who passed away on 28.03.2016.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the father of writ petitioner (herein respondent) was working as Assistant Lineman in the appellants/Company and died on 28/03/2016. On 15/11/2016, the elder son of the deceased submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment, but the same was rejected on 14/02/2017, as he was not found qualified to hold the post of Class-IV in the Company. The Company decided to grant him Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex gratia compensation to the family, but the family declined to accept the said amount. The elder son of the deceased filed W.P. No. 4325/2017 challenging the order dated 14/02/2017. However, he withdrew the writ petition on 24/01/2020 without assigning any reason.

3. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) being the second son and possessing the qualification of Higher Secondary School Examination and ITI from a recognized Institute and a degree of Bachelor of Arts, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment, but the same was rejected under Clause 3.8 of the policy of Compassionate Appointment, 2018. The writ petitioner approached the writ Court by way of a writ petition on the ground that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ashish Awasthi, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157, the application should be considered under the policy prevailing at the time of death of his father in the year 2016. The writ petitioner is possessing all the qualifications to get the post of Class-III, i.e., Testing Assistant in the Company, but his claim has wrongly been rejected. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents therein (appellants herein) by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Varsha Kushwah Vs. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and others, decided on 04.03.2025 in W.P. No. 11258/2019. The Writ Court considered the various judgments passed by the Apex Court and came to the conclusion that the policy which was in force on the date of death of the employee would be applicable, for the reason that the date of death is fixed, but the date of the policy keeps on changing. The Writ Court has rightly directed that the application be considered under the policy prevailing at the time of death, i.e., 28/03/2016.

4. We hereby make it clear that the appellant shall not reject the application on the ground that an application submitted by brother of the respondent had already been rejected.

5. The purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to give another source of income by way of appointment of one of the dependents in the same department, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per policy for compassionate appointment or prevailing Recruitment Rules. The Competent Authority of the employer department is required to examine that the dependent who has applied for compassion appointment is fulfilling the minimum qualification for the post and question and if it concludes that such dependent is not fulfilling the qualification or not suitable for the post, then it is incumbent upon the competent officer to call upon the family of the deceased and advise them to submit an application by another dependent who fulfil the qualification, rather the closing the case on technical ground. While dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground, the actual compassion