The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the authorities to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment made by the dependent of a deceased work-charged/contigency employee, observing that the claim requires fresh consideration per the applicable rules and legal principles. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 442]

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed:

"this Court is of the considered view that the matter deserves to be remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim in accordance with the applicable policy and the relevant judicial pronouncements". 

A petition was filed by a son of Late Girdhari Lal Patel, challenging the order of May 17, 2023 passed by Van Mandal Officer rejecting the compassionate appointment claim on the ground that no provision exists for grant of the same to the dependents of deceased work-charged/contigency employees. 

Per the facts, the petitioner's father died in harness on June 15, 2022. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition before this court in WP 1216/2023, which was disposed of with directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation. 

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and recorded that dependents of deceased work-chargd/contigency employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the 2014 circular. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without properly considering the subsequent circular of 2016 issued by the General Administration Department. It was contended that the said order provides for consideration of compassionate appointment claims to the dependents serving in work-charged and contingency establishments, subject to the conditions stipulated in the applicable scheme. 

The counsel for the State argued that the deceased employee was work-charged/contigency employee and, under Clause 11.1 of the circular of 2014, his dependents cannot be granted compassionate appointment. However, under the circular of 2016, the family is entitled to a grant of ₹2 lakh. It was argued that the petitioner's mother was informed about the payable benefits but refused to collect them. 

The court noted that the coordinate bench of this court in WP 3849 of 2020 had reiterated that a claim for compassionate appointment is required to be considered in accordance with the applicable policy governing the claim. The court also considered the circular of 2016, which stated that the State Government's decision concerning consideration of compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employees serving in work-charged and contingency establishments, in accordance with the conditions and parameters of the applicable compassionate appointment scheme.

The bench held, "The aforesaid circular dated 31.08.2016 assumes relevance while examining a claim of the present nature. The claim cannot be adjudicated merely by referring to the exclusionary provision contained in the circular dated 29.09.2014, without examining the subsequent instructions vide circular dated 31.08.2016, their applicability to the concerned establishment, and the eligibility of the claimant under the governing policy".

In the present case, the bench noted that the petitioner's claim was rejected solely based on the 2014 circular, without considering the 2016 circular and surrounding circumstances. 

Accordingly, the bench partly allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent no 2) to be considered afresh. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Manan Agrawal and Shubham Mishra

For State: Advocate TK Khadka