The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has set aside the cancellation of a government employee’s compassionate appointment, holding that he should not be deprived of his employment after the authorities had considered his family circumstances and allowed him to serve for several years.
Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat delivered the order on October 15, 2026, in Suraj Sagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The Court directed the authorities to allow Suraj Sagar to continue working as a Dawasaj and treat his service as continuous from his initial appointment in August 2016.
Background
Suraj Sagar’s father died in 2008, when he was 12 years old. According to his case, he and his family subsequently lived with and depended on his grandmother, Krishna Devi, who worked as a Dai at a government Ayurvedic dispensary in Bhind district.
After Krishna Devi died in service on December 6, 2015, Sagar applied for compassionate appointment. The Screening Committee considered his application, and he was appointed as a Dawasaj on August 29, 2016, following which he joined duty.
However, after a complaint, the authorities issued a show-cause notice questioning whether he qualified as a dependent under the applicable government policy. His appointment was cancelled on February 18, 2019. Sagar challenged that decision before the High Court, which stayed the cancellation on March 8, 2019. He continued working during the pendency of the petition.
The State argued that being the deceased employee’s grandson did not make him eligible under the policy. The intervener, the deceased employee’s daughter, also opposed his claim.
The Court examined whether the authorities could cancel the appointment years after granting it, when the relevant family circumstances had already been placed before them. It noted that there was no finding that Sagar had secured the appointment through fraud, false documents or deliberate suppression of material facts.
The Court observed,
“The respondents cannot, after having considered the petitioner's case and granted him compassionate appointment, seek to cancel the compassionate appointment after several years on the basis of 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.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar and Union of India v. K.P. Tiwari, the Court considered the circumstances surrounding the original appointment and Sagar’s continued service under interim protection.
It also clarified that nomination in service records and actual dependency cannot independently override the eligibility conditions of a government policy. The decision was confined to the particular facts of this case and did not establish that every grandson is entitled to compassionate appointment.
The Court further noted that the dispute before it concerned the cancellation of employment, not the determination of succession rights or entitlement to the deceased employee’s estate or retirement dues.
The High Court quashed the order dated February 18, 2019, cancelling Sagar’s appointment, and allowed the writ petition.
The Court directed the authorities to permit him to continue as a Dawasaj and treat him as having remained in continuous service from August 29, 2016. It further ordered the competent authority to consider and release all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits admissible under the law.
No order as to costs was made.
Case Details
- Case Title: Suraj Sagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4352 of 2019
- Judge: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
- Decision Date: October 15, 2026
