"Consider & Decide Compassionate Appointment Applications Within 6 Months": Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Govt Authorities

The Madya Pradesh High Court has directed the govt authorities to consider and decide applications filed seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke further observed that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together.

"As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. They are considered after several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration," the Court remarked.

The case in brief

The Court was dealing with the writ plea of one Gaurav Dubey being aggrieved by the action of State of MP and DGP, Jail and Rehabilitation Services in not giving compassionate appointment to him in place of his father who expired in August 2004 while he was on duty.

Essentially, in December 2004, his mother had moved an application seeking appointment of the petitioner as a "Boy Orderly". However, since there was no response, in the year 2015, the petitioner moved an RTI application inquiring about his pending application.

In response to the same, in July 2016, the petitioner was informed that his candidature was rejected in lieu of clause 4.1 of the State Government's policy of August 2008, which speaks of noneligibility of a person for appointment on compassionate ground if any member of the family is already in Government service.

The State govt submitted before the HC that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged 11 years and was studying in Class VI and when his application was considered in the year 2011 (when he turned 18) it was found that his mother was in Government service, and that is why he was held not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

On the other hand, before the Court, the Petitioner argued that since Panchayat services are not Government services, therefore, he should have been given appoitnment. 

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the case of the petitioner which could have been considered way back in the year 2004 (which his mother had applied before the authorities), when the father of the petitioner died, was kept lingering for 7 years.

"From bare perusal of the documents available on record it is seen that neither the application in the year 2004 filed by mother of the petitioner, for appointment of the petitioner as "Boy Orderly" was considered nor at later point of time though his application appears to be within 7 years as envisaged in clause 3.2 of the policy, was considered properly and was rejected on improper ground," the Court observed

The Court also referred to Regulation 60 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which speaks about the post of Boy-orderlies, wherein a certain number of appointments as constables are provided to boys under the ages of 18. They are known as "boy-orderlies", and receive half the pay of an ordinary constable.

Further, it also noted that the impugned rejection order was against the mandate of judgments of Division Bench of the MP High Court in the matter of Janpad Panchayat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1992 MPLJ 804 and Panchayat Karmachari Sangh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.P. 963/1983, wherein it had laid down in principle that Panchayat servants are not Government servants.

In view of the above, the order denying the petitioner compassionate appointment was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under the policy of 2008 and if he is otherwise found eligible, to appoint him on post of his entitlement.

"The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today," the Court directed further.

Case citation: GAURAV DUBEY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH and Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 178

Click Here To Read/Download Order