Administrative grant of continuity of service restores the master-servant relationship, meaning an employee who dies before physically rejoining duties should be treated as having died in harness for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :

O R D E R

The present intra-court Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellant invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to assail the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.39213 of 2024. By the said impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, thereby upholding the orders dated 11.04.2019 and 25.04.2019 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 4, which rejected her claim for the grant of Compassionate Appointment.

The factual matrix of the case, as emerging from the record, is that the father of the appellant, Late Shri Chandrakant Shukla, was serving on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Special Armed Forces), 15th Battalion SAF, Indore. The appellant is the sole daughter of her parents. Her mother passed away on 29.04.2014 after a prolonged battle with cancer, when the appellant was merely 12 years of age.

The untimely demise of his wife drove the appellant's father into severe depression. Owing to this depression and precarious family circumstances, he applied for voluntary retirement, which was accorded to him with effect from 31.08.2018.

Subsequently, upon regaining a sound mental condition, the father of the appellant withdrew his application for voluntary retirement and requested reinstatement in service. He submitted an application in this regard on 04.12.2018, which was duly forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure P/2).

While the said application was pending consideration, the appellant's father died in harness on 30.12.2018 after a prolonged ailment, rendering the appellant an orphan.

Following his demise, considering his genuine difficulties and peculiar family circumstances, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 28.01.2019. By this order, re-enlistment was granted under M.P. Police Regulations 259 and 260, and the deceased father was granted continuity of service, directing that his services be counted for the purpose of pension. However, the appellant's subsequent claim for Compassionate Appointment was rejected by the respondents vide orders dated 11.04.2019 and 25.04.2019, which led to the filing of the writ petition and, upon its dismissal, the present writ appeal.

Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant is an orphaned, sole surviving child who faced extreme penury. The family's savings were entirely siphoned off in the medical treatment of her parents.

It was contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked the material aspect that respondent No.2 had inherently recognized the precarious circumstances by passing the order dated 28.01.2019, granting re-enlistment and continuity of service to the deceased. Because of this continuity, he ought to have been considered a government servant at the time of his demise, even if he could not rejoin his actual duties.

It was further argued that respondent No.3, considering the genuine hardships of the appellant, had on humanitarian grounds recommended the grant of Compassionate Appointment, noting that she is a graduate and entirely alone in the world.

Finally, it was submitted that the laudable object of the policy dated 29.09.2014 which aims to provide relief to dependents suffering from penury due to the abrupt demise of the breadwinner—cannot be defeated on mere technicalities. The appellant prayed for setting-aside the impugned orders and seeking a direction for continuation in service.

Per contra, the stand of the respondents, as emerging from their reply, is one of strict opposition to the appeal. The respondents contended that as per Clause 1.1 of the applicable Compassionate Appointment Policy, a dependent is eligible to claim