1. Compassionate appointment of a grandson was cancelled on the grounds that the appointee did not fall within the defined category of dependents under the relevant state policy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 118165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 4352 of 2019
SURAJ SAGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque with Shri Amin Khan- Advocates for the respondent [INT].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18-09-2026 Pronounced on : 15-10-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Vpn/-
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar,Advocate General
Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar,Advocate General
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserted lawful appointment following screening and dependency. Respondents contended that the petitioner was ineligible under the policy and that the appointment was made erroneously. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court found that the authorities had consciously granted the appointment after due screening, and there was no evidence of fraud or material suppression by the petitioner. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 26 , 29 )
4. State authorities cannot terminate a compassionate appointment long after it was granted based on the same information and absence of fraud, especially after significant service duration. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 30 )
5. The cancellation order is quashed; the respondent is directed to reinstate and allow the petitioner to continue in service with all consequential benefits. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. Can the state cancel a compassionate appointment on the grounds of ineligibility after the employee has served for a significant period?
No. When the relevant facts of dependency were within the authorities' knowledge at the time of appointment and no fraud or suppression of facts is found, the state cannot, after a considerable lapse of time, terminate the employee's services based on a re-interpretation of the policy. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 26 , 29 , 30 )
7. What legal weight does long-term continuation in service via an interim court order have on the final decision of a compassionate appointment dispute?
While such continuation does not create an absolute right, it is a highly relevant factor. The court considers the potential hardship of uprooting an employee who has performed duties for years, preferring not to disturb established arrangements where no fraudulent conduct exists. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 28 , 30 )
8. Does a daughter of a deceased employee have a superior claim to compassionate appointment over a grandson nominated in service records?
The court held that claims are examined according to the policy and the circumstances presented to the screening committee. Mere status as a daughter does not automatically confer a superior right without evidence of actual dependency and eligibility under the governing policy. (Para 26 , 27 )
O R D E R
Heard on I.A. No.1929/2020, an application for intervention is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief (s):-
“7.1 That, order impugned annexure P/1 dated 18-02-2019 passed by the respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, the respondents kindly directed continue petitioner perform his duty on the post of Dawasaj.
7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and possesses all the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Dawasaj. The petitioner's grandmother, Smt. Krishna Devi, was a Government employee and was working as a Dai in the Government Ayurved Dispensary, Mehgaon, District Bhind. The petitioner's father, Late Shri Veer Singh, died in the year 2008 when the petitioner was only 12 years old. Thereafter, the petitioner, his widowed mother, two sisters and younger brother were living with and were entirely dependent upon Late Smt. Krishna Devi for their survival. In view of such dependency, the petitioner's grandmother nominated the petitioner in her service records for all purposes.
4. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Krishna Devi died in harness on 06.12.2015. Being a dependent family member, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 09.06.2016. The said application was supported by the consent of the petitioner's widowed mother, who could not apply herself as she was not educationally qualified. The Screening Committee considered the application in light of the State Government policy dated 29.09.2014 and recommended the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dawasaj vide order dated 29.08.2016 for a probation period of three years, which he successfully completed. In compliance with the appointment order, the petitioner joined his duties at Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Debhai, District Datia, on 30.08.2016 and continued to work and receive salary thereafter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of a false complaint, a show-cause notice dated 12.02.2018 was issued to him, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days regarding the allegation that he did not fall within the definition of a dependent member under Clauses 2.1 to 2.7 of the policy dated 29.09.2014. The petitioner submitted his reply through registered AD on 26.02.2018, specifically stating that his grandmother had nominated him in her service records for all purposes and that the Screening Committee had considered all the relevant documents before recommending his appointment. The petitioner was also called to Bhopal on 10.05.2018 for recording his statement, wherein he explained the circumstances relating to the death of his father and the fact that the petitioner and his family were living with and dependent upon his grandmother. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid reply and statement, the Divisional Ayush Officer passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 cancelling the petitioner's appointment. Learned counsel submits that the said order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply, without providing proper opportunity of hearing and without conducting any formal enquiry. It is further submitted that cancellation of the appointment of a fourth-class employee amounts to a major penalty, and the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. There is also clear non-application of mind on the part of the authorities, as the show-cause notice was issued by Respondent No.2, whereas the impugned order cancelling the appointment was passed by Respondent No.3 without issuing any independent
