Compassionate Appointment Not A Heritable Estate; State's Demand For Succession Certificate Arbitrary: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a heritable estate or property right that devolves by succession, and therefore, the State asking for a succession certificate to process the application for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and invalid. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed; "Compassionate appointment is not a...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a heritable estate or property right that devolves by succession, and therefore, the State asking for a succession certificate to process the application for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and invalid.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;
"Compassionate appointment is not a heritable estate or a property right that devolves by succession, it is a concession granted by the employer to save the bereaved family from sudden financial destitution. Therefore, insisting on a succession certificate for processing an application for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and without the authority of law".
The dispute arose after the death of Rameshvan Goswami, who was appointed as a driver under the establishment of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent. After his death, his son and daughter sought a compassionate appointment. The brother applied for an appointment in December 2021, and the sister also applied for the same. Faced with rival applications, the State directed both parties to produce a succession certificate to determine entitlement.
The bench first held that the State could not have asked for a succession certificate, as a compassionate appointment is not a property or heritable estate that could be shared among the heirs.
The bench emphasized that the objective of compassionate appointment was to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased government employee and not adjudication of competing succession rights.
The court further observed that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be determined strictly in accordance with the policy, in this case, the 2014 Scheme, which clearly prioritised certain dependents over others.
The bench observed that per the policy, the hierarchy flowed as follows: surviving spouse, son or unmarried daughter, widowed or divorced daughter or daughter-in-law, married daughter. Relying on the 2014 policy, the bench noted the sister was married and that the son fell within a higher category of eligibility than the married daughter.
The bench held, "Thus, in the strict line of dependents prescribed by the 2014 policy, the son of the deceased (the petitioner, Ritesh Van) holds statutory priority and comes first, completely superseding the claim of a married daughter".
Therefore, the bench upheld the brother's claim and quashed the requirement of a succession certificate. The bench also directed the authorities to reconsider the brother's application.
Case Title: Riteshwan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP 13968/2023, Anita Wan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 6223 of 2024,
For Brother: Advocate Priyvrat Singh Chouhan
For Sister: Advocate Utkarsh Joshi
For State: Government Advocate Ayushyaman Choudhary