Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6949
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
NITESH CHOUHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 25341 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Vikas Jaiswal
For the Respondents: Shri Kushagra Jain
Denial of compassionate appointment must be reasoned and justifiable under administrative law.
Headnote:This writ petition concerns the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner following the death of his father, who was an employee. The respondents failed to consider his legitimate claim while granting similar benefits to others. The court allows the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration within 30 days, which must be decided within 60 days. Such a reasoned order will be communicated to the petitioner. The court observed the respondents' prior failures in addressing the petitioner's pleas. The outcome of this representation shall dictate the final resolution of the case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 16 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 25341 of 2025 NITESH CHOUHAN Versus THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER The present petition is being filed against the arbitrary, irrartional, and illegal actions of the respondents, wherein the acting arbitrarily and irrationally are not considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his father Late Shri_ Yogendra Singh Chouhan who was working as Line Attendant Grade I Assistant Lineman at the office of Executive Engineer, M. P.P.K.V.V.L.
under the Assistant Engineer Store Sub Division and passed away on 28.07.1998 and that the petitioner was aged 08 years at the time of incident and that the mother of the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment and that the respondents had rejected the claim of the mother of the petitioner at that particular time stating that, due to the financial crunches in the company, the compassionate appointment policy has been kept in abeyance till further order. That, The respondents have since year 2012-13 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH have again started granting the benefits of compassionate appointment to the family members of the deceased employees and that the petitioner is continuously applying for grant of compassionate appointment but the respondents are not paying any heed to the representations and prayers submitted by the petitioner and that the petitioner is running from pillar to post for grant of his legitimate claims. The respondents by doing so are not only inflicting hardship on the petitioner but are also causing mental pain and financial sufferings to the petitioner and his family members by not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner and thereby granting compassionate appointment to other similarly situated persons, thereby discriminating the petitioner from other persons.
Considering the aforesaid submissions and grievance of the petitioner, this court deems it expedient to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the competent authority of the respondent within the period of 30 days from today and if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within the period of 60 days from the date of filing of the representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The outcome of the said representation shall be communicated to the petitioner.
