##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4039

1 WA-3678-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

ON THE 30^th OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 3678 of 2025

KU. MANSI RAWAT

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

None for appellant.

Shri C.P. Singh - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha

Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, has been filed against

the order dated 13/03/2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.

No.5605/2023.

2. I.A. No.15770/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 994

days.

3. Before considering this application, this Court would like to

consider the facts of the case.

4. It is the case of the appellant that her mother, who was working on

the post of A.N.M, died in harness on 08/08/2008, and at that time the

appellant was only 12 years of age. She attained majority in the year 2014–15

and accordingly she filed an application for appointment on compassionate

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMAN TIWARI

Signing time: 03-02-2026

07:56:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4039

2 WA-3678-2025

ground, which was rejected by order dated 14/06/2019, and accordingly W.P.

No.5605/2023 was filed in the year 2023, thereby challenging the order dated

14/06/2019.

5. The High Court, by order dated 13.03.2023, dismissed the writ

petition primarily on the ground of delay.

6. The undisputed facts are that the mother of the appellant died in

harness in 2008. She attained majority sometime in the year 2014. However,

her application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on

14/06/2019. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition in

the year 2023, i.e., after four years of rejection of her application for

appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was dismissed

by learned Single Judge by order dated 13/03/2023. Thereafter, the present

appeal has been filed on 19/12/2025, i.e., after two and a half years.

7. Thus, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs.

Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., decided on 03/03/2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8842–

8855 of 2022, has held as under :

"7.1. i.....xx.......

.......xx.......

v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the

principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only

for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by

the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish

Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment

is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only

to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for

endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani

Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this

Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008)

11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on

compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means

to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMAN TIWARI

Signing time: 03-02-2026

07:56:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4039

3 WA-3678-2025

crisis.

vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR

2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government

employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The

application was made by the applicant after four and half years in

September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ

petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the

learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench

decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the

date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked

that the said facts were relevant and material as they would

demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the

employee. Therefore, this Court held that granti