IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI ON THE 15^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No.7090 of 2022 MEGHA DUBEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Okhale – G.A for respondents/State

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 02.07.2021, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that she is a married sister of the deceased government servant.

2. The petitioner is a married woman, presently unemployed, and a permanent resident of Sendhwa, District Barwani, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner’s brother, late Shri Deepak Mandloi, was employed as a permanent Grade-IV employee at Secondary School No. 4, Sendhwa. It is an admitted position, borne out from the official records that the deceased employee was unmarried. During the course of his service, he unfortunately succumbed to Covid-19 on 21.04.2021. There is no dispute between the parties that late Shri Deepak Mandloi was unmarried at the time of his demise.

3. The mother of the deceased, Smt. Pushpa Bai, aged about 65 years, was dependent upon the deceased employee. After his untimely demise, the petitioner, being the only available family member willing to take care of her aged widowed mother, submitted an application dated 14.06.2021 seeking compassionate appointment, along with all requisite documents and the consent of her mother. The proposal was duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution to the competent authority. However, the respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2021, solely on the basis of Clause 2.6 of the Circular dated 29.09.2014, holding that compassionate appointment could not be granted to a married sister.

4. Per-contra, the respondents have contended that compassionate appointment is governed by policy and not by any statutory or constitutional right. It is further submitted that under the policy prevailing on the date of consideration, only a brother or unmarried sister of an unmarried deceased government servant was eligible. It has also been stated that the mother of the deceased employee is receiving pensionary benefits and, therefore, the family is not in such financial distress as would warrant compassionate appointment. On these grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. In rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that exclusion of married sisters/brother under the earlier policy was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court, including Meenakshi Dubey vs. MPPKVVCL, 2020 (1) MPLJ 20 (FB), and Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. & others- W.P No. 15841 of 2021 to contend that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denial of compassionate appointment. However the petitioner has brought on record the amended policy dated 27.03.2023, whereby the earlier Circular dated 29.09.2014 was amended.

6. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

7. This court is of the considered opinion that the facts, which are not in dispute, reveal that late Shri Deepak Mandloi was an unmarried government servant and was in regular service at the time of his death. After his demise, the petitioner, being the real sister of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment along with the consent/recommendation of their mother, Smt. Pushpa Bai. However, the claim of the petitioner was not considered favourably by the respondents on the ground that, under the prevailing policy at the relevant time, compassionate appointment to a sister of an unmarried deceased employee was not permissi