Back
'Emergency Long Over': Madhya Pradesh HC Rejects BSNL Job Plea 20 Years After Father's Death
In a stark reminder that compassionate appointments are for immediate crises—not decades-old claims—the dismissed a by Akash Tiwari seeking a job in . The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal upheld the 's order, emphasizing that Tiwari's family had not only survived but thrived without aid, even funding his engineering degree.
A Claim from 2005 Resurfaces in 2025
Akash Tiwari's father, a BSNL employee, on . Tiwari promptly applied for on , but heard nothing for years. Sporadic follow-ups came in 2016 and a fresh representation in , when BSNL revealed a 2015 rejection: Tiwari scored just 39 points against a 55-point threshold under the 2007 policy.
Challenging this before the Tribunal under , Tiwari argued the rejection letter was never served, the 1998 policy (prevalent at death) should apply, and the 2007 point system discriminated against sons/daughters (zero points vs. 15 for widows). The Tribunal dismissed on limitation and merits; the High Court agreed.
As legal news portals noted, the family
"not only survived but managed its affairs through these two decades,"
underscoring no
lingered.
Petitioner's Pushback: 'Wrong Policy, No Notice'
Tiwari's counsel, , hammered three points: - Non-service of rejection : Burden on BSNL to prove 2015 letter delivery; limitation starts from 2020 notice. - Policy mismatch : Cite Vidya Prasad (2021) and Amit Shrivas (2020)—use policy at death (1998 , no points system). - Discriminatory scheme : 2007 policy violates by favoring widows; terminal benefits irrelevant.
He distinguished cases like Malaya Nanda Sethy (2024), where departmental delay preserved old rules.
BSNL's Defense: Time Heals All Crises
Respondents, via , countered: - assessed in 2008 under 2007 guidelines (operationalizing 1998 ); 39/100 points fairly reflected no dire need. - 20+ years post-death: Family endured sans crisis—core object from Umesh Kumar Nagpal (1994). - Limitation bars claim; petitioner's silence post-2005 shows , per Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006).
No exists; schemes evolve, as in SBI v. Raj Kumar (2010).
Judicial Dissection: Precedents Seal the Fate
The bench revisited foundational law: Compassionate jobs aren't recruitment rights but humanitarian exceptions for
"
and without means of livelihood"
(
Nagpal
). Post-reasonable delay,
"the family would not be able to make both ends meet"
evaporates (
Sajad Ahmed Mir
—4.5 years too late).
Tiwari's precedents faltered on facts: - Malaya Nanda Sethy : No applicant delay, pure bureaucratic fault. - : No formal rejection, contractual ruse. - Others lacked 20-year gaps or involved live claims.
2007 policy? Merely structured 1998 guidelines for objectivity. Point system unchallenged deeply (policy domain), but irrelevant—crisis gone.
Key Observations
"The wholeof—the mitigation of a sudden, immediate financial crisis—stands extinguished with the passage of time. A claim pressed after twenty years cannot be said to address any emergency..."
"More than twenty years have elapsed since the death of the employee. The family has not only survived but the petitioner has completed his engineering education, which itself is indicative of a certain degree of financial stability."
"Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a..."
No Job, No Reprieve: Petition Dismissed
The court dismissed Misc. Petition No. 2631 of 2025 on , finding no perversity in Tribunal's order. Implications? Reinforces strict timelines for claims; families must act swiftly or forfeit. For BSNL/ schemes, objective points endure, but judges caution against endless pursuit—service law prioritizes immediacy over equity after decades.
This ruling echoes across public sector employers: Survive long enough, and compassion yields to equality under Article 14.
