'No Sudden Or Immediate Financial Crisis': MP High Court Dismisses Plea For Compassionate Appointment 20 Years After Father's Death

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied the petition of a son seeking compassionate appointment more than 20 years after his father's death, observing that the family had endured 20 years without the benefit of compassionate appointment and therefore the appointment cannot be said to be in a sudden or immediate financial crisis.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed,

"The whole raison detre of compassionate appointment 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, the emergency, if it ever existed, has long since passed".

The petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected the original application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in BSNL.

Per the facts, the father of the petitioner was working in the BSNL and died in harness in April 2005. Within a short span, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in May 2005. However, the petitioner received no reply from the departments for years. He filed another application in March 2016 seeking an update.

Subsequently, in January 2020, he made a fresh representation before the authorities, who informed him that his case had been rejected as he received only 39 points out of 100 under the compassionate appointment scheme of BSNL.

The petitioner, thus, challenged the order rejecting his appointment and the communication thereafter, contending that the ejection letter was never served upon him. It was further contended that the case ought to have been decided under the DOPT policy of 1998, and the assessment under the policy of 2007 was discriminatory and arbitrary.

The bench noted that no relief could be extended to the petitioner as 20 years have lapsed since his father's death. The bench noted that the purpose of a compassionate appointment is to mitigate a sudden or immediate financial crisis.

In the present case, there was no sudden or immediate financial crisis, as the father had died 20 years ago, and any emergency that existed had long since passed.

Further, on the issue of non-service of the rejection letter, the court noted that the burden of proving non-service lies on the party asserting it. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner has the onus of proving non-service. The bench noted that the petitioner first received information of rejection in January 2020; the case, however, remained without any conclusion or adjudication for 15 years from 2005 to 2020. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that the petition was barred by limitation.

Additionally, the court noted that his case was assessed by a competent High Powered Committee in 2008, which took a holistic evaluation of the financial condition along with other relevant parameters. The committee assigned 39 points out of 100, whereas the minimum for consideration was 55 points. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was neither kept pending indefinitely nor ignored but was actively considered on the merits.

The bench highlighted, "In the present case, 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. The very object of compassionate appointment, namely to tide over a sudden crisis, stands extinguished with the passage of time".

Thus, the bench dismissed the petition and rejected the grounds raised.

Case Title: Akash Tiwari v Unin Of India, MP-2631-2025

For Petitioner: Advocate Kabeer Paul

For Respondents: Advocate Shrikrishna Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order