The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has directed the immediate reinstatement of a petitioner whose compassionate appointment was cancelled years after his initial hiring. In a significant judgment, the court quashed an order passed by the Divisional Ayush Officer that had revoked the appointment of a grandson who had been serving as a 'Dawasaj' since 2016. The court emphasized that the state cannot retrospectively challenge an appointment on the grounds of policy eligibility when the individual involved had made no misrepresentation and had already been vetted by a screening committee.

The petitioner, Suraj Sagar, had sought the position following the death of his grandmother, who was a government employee at an Ayurvedic Dispensary. Following her passing in 2015, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment. His application was processed, scrutinized by the competent screening committee, and subsequently approved. He successfully completed a three-year probation period, proving his professional commitment. However, in 2019, the authorities issued an order cancelling his appointment, citing a reinterpretation of the government policy regarding who constitutes a "dependent member" of a deceased employee.

Protection of Established Employment

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, presiding over the case, observed that the authorities had all relevant facts regarding the petitioner’s relationship with the deceased employee at the time of the initial selection. There was no allegation or evidence of fraud, manipulation, or the suppression of material facts by the petitioner during the application process. The court highlighted the instability created when the state attempts to uproot an employee who has performed his duties for a significant duration, noting that the petitioner had continued to serve throughout the litigation process due to an interim order granted in 2019.

"The respondents cannot, after having considered the petitioner's case and granted him compassionate appointment , seek to cancel the compassionate appointment after several years on the basis of the very facts which were available to them at the time of compassionate appointment , particularly when there is no finding of fraud or deliberate suppression against the petitioner," the court noted in its ruling.

The judgment relies on the principle that the state, as a welfare entity, is expected to maintain consistency in its administrative decisions. By allowing the petitioner to join, complete his probation, and serve for nearly a decade, the state had effectively solidified his position. The court further pointed out that the policy itself provides a mechanism for authorities to resolve disputes among family members regarding who should receive the appointment, suggesting that the government should have exercised this evaluative discretion before the initial appointment was finalized, rather than years later.

Policy Interpretation and Family Disputes

The case also brought into focus the competing claims within families for compassionate benefits. The court addressed the contention raised by an intervener—the daughter of the deceased—who argued that her claim was superior to that of the petitioner. Justice Bahrawat clarified that a relative's claim cannot automatically be deemed superior solely based on their biological proximity to the deceased. Instead, the focus must remain on the actual dependency of the applicant as reviewed by the governing authority at the time.

"The question of compassionate appointment is required to be examined in accordance with the applicable policy and the facts placed before the competent authority," the court stated. The judgment affirms that once the state has conducted its inquiry and performed its duty of selection, it cannot subsequently discard an employee simply because of a shift in administrative opinion or the introduction of a new, competing family claim.

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by precedents established by the Supreme Court, which emphasize that termination based on "policy reinterpretation" after years of service is unjustified when the initial hiring was transparent. The court noted that the state was aware of the family structure from the beginning and therefore could not take advantage of its own alleged "mistake" in appointment processing to terminate the livelihood of a long-term employee.

Operational Directions and Consequences

In its final order, the High Court set aside the cancellation notice dated February 18, 2019, and confirmed that the petitioner shall be treated as having been in continuous service since his initial appointment in August 2016. This direction ensures that the petitioner retains all consequential seniority, back wages, and service benefits accrued during the period of his employment.

The respondents have been directed to treat the petitioner’s status as uninterrupted, effectively merging the interim protection granted during the court proceedings into a permanent, legal reality. This outcome provides a critical safeguard for employees who have been properly appointed, ensuring they are not unfairly penalized by administrative reversals that lack a basis in fraud or misconduct. The ruling serves as a reminder to government bodies that the administrative finality of employment decisions is paramount, particularly when an employee has long fulfilled their obligations to the state. With this order, the petitioner continues his duties, and the matter regarding his legal standing in the government dispensary is definitively settled.