IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 879 of 2018 SANKET HUNDAIT Versus THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND C.E (BR) (BHOPAL REGION)

MPMKVV CO. LTD. THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Anil Sharma - learned Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner seeking following relief(s):

"1. That, the impugned order dated 24/10/2017 vide Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. That, the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner be given the compassionate appointment in the respondent’s department as per the prevailing policy.

3. That, any other relief may be granted which this hon’ble court deems fit."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner late Shri Pradeep Hundait was regular employee of the respondent's department and was working on the post of clerk (Additional Office Assistant Class-II) at the office of the respondent No.3 Deputy General Manager. It is further submitted that father of petitioner succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident. There was no any other source of income as he was the only bread earner in his family. The petitioner moved an application before the competent authority on 13.2.2012 for compassionate appointment. When there was no action initiated, then on 1.8.2013, petitioner again moved a representation before the concerned authorities. Thereafter, on 27.5.2015 respondent No.3 rejected the application of the petitioner stating that as per the revised policy 2013, petitioner was not eligible for his compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that as per revised policy 2013, pending matters before 10.4.2012 would not be taken into consideration. Thereafter, petitioner again preferred a representation before the competent authority and thereafter another revised policy of the year 2016 came into existence w.e.f. 13.4.2016 and as per clause 1.1.(3) of the newly revised policy, it was categorically mentioned that such policy was applicable to the claims pertaining to the deceased employees whose death occurred after 15.11.2000 and before 10.4.2012. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, respondent No.3, after considering the representation, rejected the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that as per clause 1.1.(3), petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that father of petitioner late shri Pradeep Hundait was died in road accident on 11.5.2011 and at the time of accident, father of petitioner was not on duty. In terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 15.02.2012; however, the same was not considered in view of the total ban on compassionate appointments with effect from 01.09.2000. It is further submitted that the case of petitioner has already been considered by competent authority and has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner by order dated 27.5.2015 (Annexure P/4) and this rejection order has not been challenged by petitioner in the present petition and thereafter, on the basis of amended policy/circular dated 13.4.2016, petitioner has again submitted an application in a plain paper not in prescribed format. Thereafter, the respondent was suggested to petitioner to file an application in proper format. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format on 11.10.2017, stating that his father had expired due to an accident and that he was an Office Assistant. As per clause 1.1.(3) petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that 14 years have elapsed since the death of the father of the petitioner.

4. Heard the le