The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the competent authority deciding the compassionate appointment should take a compassionate and sensitive approach rather than a technical and rigid approach. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 344]

Emphasizing that most of the time the deceased's family gets wrong advice, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed;

"While dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground, the actual compassion and sensitivity should be shown by the competent authority rather than rigid and technical attitude. Most of the time the dependence of the deceased do not get correct advice for applying under the policy of compassionate appointment; then, in such cases, the department should take responsibility to give proper advice as to how the eligible dependent can apply to get the benefit of the policy".

A writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Single Judge, wherein the appellant's application for compassionate appointment was dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within 6 months.

Per the facts, the father of the appellant died on February 4, 2025, while working in the respondent company. The appellant's father was the sole breadwinner, and the appellant's brother, being an elder son, had initially applied for compassionate appointment on July 17, 2015. However, after the procedural exchanges, the brother's application on January 6, 2016, directed him to rectify the debates and submit a fresh application. The brother could not pursue his claim because he lacked the mandatory ITI diploma qualification required for the post.

Subsequently, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on October 4, 2021, but the department rejected the application, citing delay under Clause 3.3 of the 2018 Policy, which stipulates a 6-month limitation period from the date of the employee's death. Thereafter, the general Manager issued a final order on June 22, 2023, affirming the rejection.

The petitioner's petition before the Single Judge was also dismissed; hence, he filed an appeal before the Division Bench.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Single Judge failed to consider that the family had already raised a claim for appointment within the prescribed period, as his brother had submitted his application within the stipulated time. Therefore, the appellant contended that his subsequent application cannot be treated as entirely fresh.

It was further argued that the Single Judge failed to consider that the department had returned the brother's application and thereafter the appellant applied with the consent of the family. It was submitted that per the policy, only one family member is entitled for appointment and that the dependants cannot apply together.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Policy of 2018 cannot be applied mechanically.

The counsel for the respondent company argued that the appellant's claim cannot be considered as it was filed beyond the limitation.

Emphasizing that the purpose of a compassionate appointment is to provide the family a source of income by appointing one of the dependents in the same department, the bench held that the department deciding the said appointment must advise the family, rather than closing the application on technical grounds.

Taking note of the objection that dependants cannot apply simultaneously, the bench referred to the case of Kalpana v State of Maharashtra and reiterated that substitution of one dependent for another is permissible and does not constitute a fresh application, as the family seeks only one appointment.

Thus, the bench, disapproving the impugned order, remanded the matter back to the company authority to consider the appellant's application within 30 days from the date of production of the certificate copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Divya Kushwah v MP Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd, WA-2986-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 344

For Appellant: Advocate Upendra Yadav

For Respondent: Advocate Smrati Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order