##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH th ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 12820 of 2023 CNR No.: MPHC010318032023 DEEPCHAND PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manan Agrawal and Shri Shubham Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri T.K. Khadka - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that no provision exists for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased work-

charged/contingency employees.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner’s father, late Shri Girdhari Lal Patel, was serving in the respondent establishment and died in harness on 15.06.2022. The petitioner, claiming to be a dependant of the deceased employee, sought compassionate appointment. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. No.1216/2023, which was disposed of by order dated 27.03.2023, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation by passing a speaking order in accordance with the applicable policy of the State Government. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents considered the petitioner’s representation and vide order dated 16.05.2023, recorded that the dependants of deceased work-charged/contingency employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the circular dated 29.09.2014 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide order dated 17.05.2023, primarily on the ground that the applicable policy provided for payment of compassionate grant instead of compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering the subsequent circular dated 31.08.2016 bearing No. C-5-1/2016/1/3 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that the said circular provides for consideration of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employees serving in work- charged and contingency establishments, subject to the conditions stipulated in the applicable scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner’s claim reconsidered in accordance with the aforesaid circular. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3849/2020 (Rahul Kewat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), which was allowed by quashing the impugned order therein and remanding the matter back to the Authorities for re-consideration of application of the petitioner therein for grant of compassionate appointment based upon the subsequent circular issued by the Government dated 31/08/2016 and also the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State while opposing the petition, submits that the deceased employee was a work- charged/contingency employee and under clause 11.1 of the circular dated 29.09.2014, dependants of work-charged/contingency employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment. However, under the circular dated 31.08.2016, the family is entitled to a compassionate grant of Rs.2,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents/State further states that the petitioner's mother was informed about the payable benefits but refused to collect them. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated 17.05.2023. Thus, pra