Daughter’s claim for compassionate job need not be superior to grandson’s: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has restored a man’s compassionate appointment that was cancelled nearly three years after he joined government service in 2016 following his grandmother’s death. It held that the deceased employee’s daughter could not automatically claim precedence over her grandson, particularly when the authorities had considered his case before appointing him and found no fraud or deliberate suppression of facts.

Dealing with a man’s plea challenging the cancellation of his appointment order, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat said the petitioner did not conceal his relationship with the deceased employee, who was his grandmother. The court noted that he placed his relationship and the circumstances of his family before the authorities when his application was considered.

“Merely because the intervener is the daughter of the deceased employee, her claim cannot automatically be treated as superior to that of the petitioner. The question of compassionate appointment is required to be examined in accordance with the applicable policy and the facts placed before the competent authority,” the court observed on October 15.

It stressed that there is no finding in the order that the petitioner obtained the appointment by producing a false document, practising fraud, or deliberately suppressing any material fact. “The screening committee examined his case and recommended his appointment,” it held. The man had continued in service under an interim court order after challenging the cancellation in 2019.

The order clarified that the court is not holding that every grandson is entitled to compassionate appointment. “The question is whether the appointment granted in the particular circumstances of this case could properly be cancelled after the relevant facts had already been examined by the authorities and no fraud or deliberate suppression was found,” it said.

The court explained that the intervener is the daughter of the deceased employee and is entitled to raise any grievance available to her in accordance with law, but the present petition concerns the legality of the cancellation of compassionate appointment, and not a proceeding to decide succession to the estate or retiral dues of the deceased employee.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat noted that the petitioner was not appointed by concealing his relationship with the deceased employee.

Grandson’s appointment challenged

The petitioner was appointed as a Dawasaj at a Government Ayurvedic Dispensary in Madhya Pradesh on compassionate grounds following the death of his grandmother, a government employee, in December 2015. His father had died in 2008. His widowed mother, two sisters, and younger brother were dependent on his grandmother for their livelihood.

Story continues below this ad

The grandson applied for compassionate appointment in June 2016, stating that his grandmother had nominated him in her service records. After the screening committee recommended his case, he was appointed in August 2016 and joined duty.

In February 2018, the authorities issued him a show-cause notice questioning his eligibility under the state government’s compassionate appointment policy. Despite his reply explaining his family’s dependency on his grandmother, the divisional Ayush officer cancelled his appointment in February, 2019, on the ground that he did not fall within the policy’s definition of an eligible dependent.

The grandson challenged the cancellation before the high court. His counsel, advocate Bahadur Singh Tomar, argued that the authorities had considered his family circumstances before appointing him and that he had neither concealed any material facts nor misrepresented his relationship with the deceased employee. The deceased employee’s daughter intervened in the proceedings, opposing his claim on the ground that he was ineligible under the policy.

No fraud or deliberate suppression found: Order

Noting that a person cannot claim compassionate appointment contrary to the governing policy, the court said, however, the present case has to be examined on its own facts.

Story continues below this ad

The order highlighted that the petitioner was not appointed by concealing his relationship with the deceased employee. “His case was placed before the competent authorities, his circumstances were considered by the screening committee, and thereafter the appointment order was consciously issued,” it noted.

The court underscored that the state cannot, after having considered the petitioner’s case and granted him compassionate appointment, seek to cancel the compassionate appointment after several years based on the very facts which were available to them at the time of compassionate appointment, particularly when there is no finding of fraud or deliberate suppression against the petitioner.

The order said that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2016 after consideration of his case by the screening committee. It noted that he completed his probation.

The court pointed out that when his appointment was cancelled in 2019, the petitioner immediately challenged the order and obtained interim protection, and, since then, he has remained in service continuously.

Story continues below this ad

The court concluded that since the petitioner has actually discharged his duties during the period of his continuation pursuant to the interim order, the competent authority shall consider and release all the consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, admissible to him in accordance with law.