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

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 16855 of 2018 GANGA VISHNU KORI Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER . AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

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

"i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the Mercy appointment in place of Late Rajaram Kori.

ii. Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation."

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that brother of the petitioner who was employed in respondent/establishment died in harness on 31.08.2010. The petitioner's joint application with his another brother namely Seturam for appointment on compassionate basis was rejected on 12.07.2010 on the ground that the petitioner and his brother being indirect dependents do not qualify to be appointed on compassionate basis. It is submitted that succession certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner and his brother Seturam by competent Court, thus, they are entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. From the bare perusal of the relief clause, it is gathered that the petitioner has not challenged order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure P/5) on rejection of his application. The petitioner's brother died in the year 2010. The petitioner's application was rejected in the year 2010. Present petition has been filed in the year 2018. In the delay clause, nothing has been mentioned to explain the delay in filing the present petition. The petitioner has also not filed any document to suggest that which policy is available in respondent/establishment for compassionate appointment. He is not in position to submit even when the matter is being heard on admission in the year 2025, after a lapse of period of about 15 years from death of petitioner's brother.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs.

Arvindkumar T.Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Compassionate appointment is for the urgent financial need and survival of the family after the death of the employee. It is held as under :

"8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. A claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Such a category of employment itself, is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16, which provide that there can be no discrimination in public employment. The object of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcome the sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2294)."

6. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary to Government, Department of Education (Primary) and others vs. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa (2021) 20 SCC 707, has held :

"18. ... This is fundamentally due to the fact that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law.

19. If compassionate appointment is one of the conditions of service and is made automatic upon the death of an employee in harness wi