IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI ON THE 16^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7025 of 2022 MAYUR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jitesh Sharma - GA for the State.

ORDER The petitioner had initially filed this writ petition, praying for a direction to the respondents to consider and take suitable action on his application for compassionate appointment in view of the provisions contained in the circular dated 29.09.2014. During the pendency of this petition, the respondents passed the order dated 18.10.2024, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application and accordingly, the said order has been challenged by the petitioner by way of amendment in the petition.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner’s father late Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma was working as Assistant Development Extension Officer in Janpad Panchayat Mehgaon, District Bhind. He expired on 12.07.2017 while in service. After the death of his father, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded by respondent no.5 to respondent no.4, who in turn forwarded the same to respondent no.2. The petitioner was thereafter asked to submit affidavit of his family members in terms of Clause 4.1 of the circular dated 29.09.2014, which he duly submitted. From the affidavits of the petitioner’s sister, it was gathered that one of his sisters, namely Smt. Pooja Sharma, was already in the employment of the State Government on the date of death of their father. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/10), the petitioner’s application was rejected in terms of Clause 4.1 of the policy.

3. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner by invoking Clause 4.1 of the circular dated 29.09.2014, on the ground that his sister is already in Government employment, is arbitrary and illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner’s sister was already married on the date of death of their father and, therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the policy are not attracted. It is further submitted that once a daughter is married, she is not expected to take care of the dependents of her paternal family. It was further submitted that after the marriage of the petitioner’s sister, she ceased to be the member of the family of the deceased father and, on this ground as well, the provisions of Clause 4.1 of the policy are not attracted. He thus prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for consideration of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this case in the case of Neha Kharte Vs. State of M.P. &

Ors. in W.A. No. 13/2020.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that on the date of death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s sister was already in Government employment and, therefore, by virtue of Clause 4.1 of the policy, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the petitioner’s sister was residing with the deceased employee only and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was unable to take care of the family. The learned counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father expired on 12.07.2017.

From the affidavits submitted by the petitioner in support of his application for compassionate appointment, it is evident that one of his sisters, namely Akanksha Sharma, was married on 21.11.2011, while another sister, namely Pooja Sharma, was married on 27.05.2017. It is also not in dispute th