IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT rd ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1677 of 2017 MOHAN SINGH KUSHWAH Versus MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Singh Bhadoria - learned counsel for petitioner.

Shri Narrotam Sharma - learned counsel for respondents.

ORDER

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

"It is humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 Annexure P/1 passed by Respondent No. 3 may kindly be quashed and the Respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the compassionate ground in the interest of justice.

Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. Costs be awarded."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by order dated 08.12.2016, the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent Company by taking into account the prevailing policy issued by the Company. It is further submitted that the father of petitioner, namely Late Shri Govinddas Kushwah, died on 07.02.2005. He was posted as a Security Soldier and met with an accident on 26.01.2005 while returning after attending the flag ceremony and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 07.02.2005. Thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; however, his claim was rejected without assigning any specific reason, merely recording a casual finding that his case was not covered under the policy of compassionate appointment issued by the respondent Company. It is further submitted that by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 08.12.2016, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. It is further submitted that when an employee leaves his house to perform his duties and until he returns home after completion of such duties, the intervening period i.e. the time taken to reach the place of duty and to return home after discharge of duty ought to be treated as part of duty hours. In the present case, an FIR was lodged in which the time of the accident is mentioned as 10:00 A.M. It is clarified that the father of petitioner met with the accident on 26.01.2005 after attending the flag ceremony. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daivshala and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 10513.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that as per the policy of compassionate appointment, the dependents of personnel who died in harness between 15.11.2000 and 10.04.2012 shall be considered for compassionate appointment only if the personnel expired on account of an accident or assault caused during the course of their duties. It is further submitted that on the date of death of the petitioner’s father, there was no policy of compassionate appointment in the Board and the cut-off date of 10.04.2012 was fixed because prior to that date, the employees had not been finally absorbed in the Company. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner expired on 07.02.2005 and his death occurred on account of a road accident. It is further submitted that the residence of father of petitioner was at Village Budhera, which is located on Seondha Road. However, as per the FIR, the incident occurred near Pitambara Crusher, about 8 km from Police Station Civil Lines on Bhander Road which is in a totally different direction from Seondha Road. It is further submitted that the story projected by the petitioner, namely that the deceased was returning home after attending the Flag Hoisting ceremony held in Datia City, is wholly incorrect. It is further submitted that the death or injury of an employee in a road accident whi