The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment, holding that the State policy refers specifically to the “first child” of a deceased employee and does not create any preference for a son over a daughter.
A Division Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke and Justice Pushpendra Yadav held that treating the only son as eligible merely because he was the only male child would amount to introducing a gender-based distinction that is not found in the policy.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of the appellant’s father, Rajesh Sharma, a constable in the 13th Battalion of the Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force, who died while in service on January 19, 1998.
At that time, the appellant was around one year old. He had two elder sisters. His mother had also sought compassionate appointment, but her applications were rejected. The appellant later approached the High Court seeking consideration of his claim under Clause 3.2 of the State’s compassionate appointment policy.
Before the Division Bench, he argued that the policy permits consideration where the first child is a minor, within one year of attaining majority. He also relied on the fact that he was the only son in the family.
Court’s Observation
The Bench examined Clause 3.2 of the policy issued by the General Administration Department on September 29, 2014. The provision ordinarily permits compassionate appointment where a post is available within seven years of the employee’s death. Its proviso allows consideration within one year of attaining majority where the first child was a minor when the employee died.
The Court found that the seven-year period in the present case had expired on January 18, 2005. The appellant could not rely on the proviso because he was not the first child; the record showed that he had two elder sisters.
Rejecting the argument based on his being the only boy, the Bench observed that the policy
“does not differentiate or create a class within a class between girls and boys” and specifically refers to the “first child.”
The Court also reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing sudden hardship after the death of its breadwinner. It is not a hereditary entitlement or an alternative form of regular recruitment. Since more than 25 years had passed, the Court held that the purpose of such appointment could no longer support the belated claim.
Decision
The Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge’s order and held that the appellant was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the applicable policy.
The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Alok Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 169 of 2023
Judge: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke and Justice Pushpendra Yadav
Decision Date: August 14, 2026
-300x169.webp)