IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 4 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 10769 of 2020 KRISHN KUMAR MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate and Shri Sampat Lal Kushwah -

Advocate through Video Conferencing.

Shri Gaurav Maheshwari - Advocate for Respondents no.2 to 4.

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

"(i) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 6.7.2020, passed by the Respondent No.3, and direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a fixed period. (ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that father of petitioner died in harness on 01.08.2001. It is submitted that earlier when the petitioner was minor, mother of the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.62/2003(S) and this Court had disposed of the petition vide order dated 1.4.2004 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner whenever the Scheme comes in force. It is submitted that the respondents had issued the compassionate appointment scheme in the year 2013 and on the basis of said policy, the petitioner, being the son, became major, had applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 8.4.2015 with all requisite documents. When the respondents had not taken any decision on the application, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5181/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.3.2020 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 8.4.2015 within three months. It is submitted that in compliance to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.3 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order on the ground that father of the petitioner was working in the erstwhile Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Amarpatan and died on 1.8.2001, whereas the said society had been taken over/acquired by the erstwhile M.P.E.B. on 15.8.2010, therefore, as per clause 1.1(iii) at the time when father of the petitioner died, he was not the employee of the MPSEB/Company, therefore, compassionate appointment could not be granted to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause 1.2 of the Compassionate appointment policy, 2018, the employees who died due to sudden accident, electric accident, attack or vehicle accident, between 15.11.2020 and 10.4.2012 while working in the M.P. State Electricity Board/Company, then one of their dependents would be entitled for compassionate appointment as per clause 2 and 3 of the policy. He further submits that the petitioner continuously pursing his claim for grant of compassionate appointment, therefore, there is no delay in filing the application for grant of compassionate appointment.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the application was filed belatedly with delay of around 7 years. The policy for compassionate appointment came into force in the year 2013. The petitioner's mother for the first time applied for compassionate appointment after death of father. At that point of time there was no Scheme for the employees of the society. Thus, this court in W.P.No.62/2003(S) filed by mother of the petitioner had directed that in case such Scheme is floated, mother of the petitioner may apply. But, thereafter petitioner being the son had applied in the year 2015. The present petition has been filed in the year 2020. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal Vs.

Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. Etc., decided on 3rd March, 2023 in Civil Appeal No