IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 12984 of 2024 ASHISH PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sangita Parsai - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kushagra Jain Dy.GA for the State.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order 09/11/2023, wherein the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his father is already working in Government Department and the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment according to the policy of the Government.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner's mother was working as Assistant Teacher Grade-III. She died in harness on 24/10/2017. The petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment and also for release of payment of gratuity, GPF, PPF, Insurance amount etc and since the said application was not decided, the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 6547/2023 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27/09/2023 directing the Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner preferred a representation on 29/09/2023 and the said representation was decided by impugned order dated 09/11/2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on two grounds as under :

i) That the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of B.Ed / D.Ed for the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III.

ii) That father of the petitioner namely Yashwant Kumar Pathak was already working in Government job.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the fact and the record, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner had admittedly died in the year

2017 and father of the petitioner was a Government employee.

6. Clause - 4.1 of the policy dated 29/09/2014 prescribes that if any member of the family is in Government job, the candidate will not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Apart from that, this Court finds that the petitioner was seeking compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III and for the said post, the essential qualification is B.Ed /

D.Ed.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the petitioner was not having requisite qualification of B.Ed or D.Ed, the respondent ought to have given him an appointment by granting him time to obtain B.Ed / D.Ed Decree / Diploma or he could have been considered for any other post.

8. This Court finds that death of mother of the petitioner was taken place in the year 2017 and the case of the petitioner was considered as per the policy of the State Government (Annexure-R/1).

9. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in JT 1994(3) SC 525, Hon'ble Supreme court has clearly held that appointment on compassionate ground can be considered only if the family is in indigent circumstances and not as a matter of right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following important principle regarding compassionate appointment.

"(i) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground.

(ii) The posts in Group 'C’ and 'D’ (formerly classes III and IV)are the lowest pots in non-manual and manual categories andhence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds an