The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of a compassionate appointee, holding that authorities failed to properly assess whether the candidate was genuinely unfit for government service.
Background of the Case
The case, Bherugir vs State of Madhya Pradesh, arose after the petitioner was appointed as a peon following the death of his father, a government employee, in 2017. The appointment was made on compassionate grounds to support the family during financial hardship.
During verification, the petitioner had stated that no criminal case was pending against him. However, it later emerged that a case under Section 498-A IPC, stemming from a matrimonial dispute with his first wife, had been registered earlier.
Although the petitioner was acquitted in March 2018 after a compromise, the authorities declared him unfit and terminated his services in June 2018, citing non-disclosure.
The petitioner argued that:
- He had already been acquitted before the termination order.
- The non-disclosure was not intentional but due to misunderstanding.
- The case arose from a personal matrimonial dispute and did not involve serious misconduct.
- No opportunity of hearing was given before termination.
The State contended that the petitioner suppressed material information in the verification form. It argued that the appointment order clearly allowed cancellation if adverse police verification was received, and the action taken was as per rules.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai examined whether the termination met legal standards.
The Court noted that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a family in distress and should not be treated with the same rigidity as regular recruitment.
Importantly, the Court observed that:
“The finding of unfitness must be based on well-reasoned grounds, not merely on an automated reaction to non-disclosure.”
It further highlighted that the criminal case:
- Was linked to a matrimonial dispute
- Did not involve moral wrongdoing affecting public service
- Had already ended in acquittal before termination
The Court found that authorities failed to independently assess whether such a past dispute actually made the petitioner unsuitable for a Class-IV post.
The High Court held the termination arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It quashed:
- Communication dated 02/06/2018
- Termination order dated 22/06/2018
- Subsequent communication dated 18/04/2019
The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment afresh, in light of its observations, within 60 days.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bherugir vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: W.P. No. 19107/2019
Judge: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
Decision Date: 04 May 2026
