IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7151 of 2015 SHEETAL SHARMA Versus MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.LTD.&

ANR.

Appearance:

Shri Aditya Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i- Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the light of policy decision of respondents.

ii- On consideration, if petitioner is found eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, the same be granted to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner died on 02.02.1990 and he was serving with M.P. Electricity Board/respondent. After death of father, mother of the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 30.01.1997 which was considered and rejected by order dated 12.08.1998 (Annexure R/2). Thereafter, again the mother of petitioner has applied by application dated 10.11.2009 which was rejected by order dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure R/3). It is further submitted that the petitioner was having educational qualification and the respondents denied the compassionate appointment to the petitioner as they have given priority to those cases in which death has occurred while serving in the company. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 29.07.2015 (Annexure P/5) and has now filed the present petition. At the time of the petitioner’s father’s death, the petitioner was a minor. Subsequently, in the year 2000, a ban was imposed on compassionate appointments in the respondent-department. Therefore, there was no occasion for considering the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment during that period. The ban was lifted only in the year 2012–2013. In these circumstances, the non-consideration of the petitioner’s case is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition concealed so many material facts and did not come with clean hands before this Court. Father of the petitioner died on 02.02.1990 and the present petition has been filed on 13.10.2015 i.e. after lapse of 25 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner concealed material fact that after death of her father on 02.02.1990, her mother Smt. Anita Sharma made an application in the year 1998 for appointment to her brother-in-law (Devar) Shri Brajesh Kumar Sharma and on such application, the Competent Authority asked Smt. Anita Sharma as to why she has interest for compassionate appointment of her brother-in-law because at that relevant time, brother-in-law was not in the family of deceased employee. Thereafter, the case was considered in view of the policy prevailing at that point of time and the case for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 12.08.1998 (Annexure R/2).

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that again the petitioner's mother Smt. Anita Sharma submitted an application dated 10.11.2009 for appointment of the petitioner and by letter dated 4.12.2009, she was informed that as per the circular dated 30.01.1997, application for compassionate appointment must be submitted within a year and after the period, no action on application can be taken and her case was closed at that time. It is well settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the principle for compassionate appointment is that dependent of deceased employee and his family is provided immediate financial supported in distressed con