The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State's policy governing compassionate appointment does not distinguish between male and female children of the deceased employee and applies strictly to the first child. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 325]

The division bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke and Justice Pushpendra Yadav, dismissing a claim for compassionate appointment by the only son of the deceased employee, observed: 

"The aforesaid Clause does not differentiate or create a class within a class between girls and boys; it strictly refers to the “first child”. Any such differentiation would be violative of the basic principles of the Constitution of India, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender". 

The son approached the High Court challenging the order of the Single Judge wherein his petition for compassionate appointment was denied. He contended that he was only one year old when his father died and therefore his case was covered by clause 3.2 of the state policy. 

Referring to the policy, the appellant claimed that the policy issued stated that where the first child of a deceased employee is a minor at the time of the employee's death, an application for compassionate appointment may be considered within one year of the child attaining majority. 

He submitted that his mother had earlier applied for a compassionate appointment, but her application was rejected. He stated that he had two elder sisters and was the only son in the family, contending that his case deserved exceptional consideration. 

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, observing that the objective of compassionate appointment had ceased to exist, and after more than 2 decades from the employee's death, such relaxation could not be sought. 

Before the division bench, the appellant argued that since he was only one year old when his father died, his case ought to have been considered under Clause 3.2, which specifically provides for consideration of a minor first child after attaining majority. 

The court examined Clause 3.2 of the applicable policy and noted that it stipulates that a dependent may be considered for compassionate appointment if a post is available within 7 years from the date of death. 

The provision provides an exception where the first child is a minor on the date of death. In such cases, the application may be considered within one year from the date on which the child attains majority. 

The court held that the appellant's claim was not covered by the main provision because his father died in 1998 and the seven-year period expired on January 18, 2005. The appellant could not invoke the proviso also, it held, because he was not the first child of the deceased employee. It was admitted that he had two elder sisters and therefore he could not be treated as first child merely because he was the only son. 

The bench specifically rejected the argument that being the only male child entitled the appellant to preferential treatment. The court emphasised that the policy of compassionate appointment is gender-neutral, and that an interpretation favouring the son over the elder daughter would be inconsistent with the basic constitutional principles of equality. 

The court further emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to a family that has suddenly lost its breadwinner. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a hereditary right flowing from a government employee held by the deceased. 

Highlighting that the deceased passed away 25 years ago, the court held that the appellant's belated claim could not be entertained as the family had survived more than two decades without such appointment.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed. 

Case Title: Alok Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WRIT APPEAL No. 169 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 325

For Appellant: Advocate Harshad Bahirani

For State: Government Advocate Dharmendra Nayak

Click here to read/download the Order