Quoting a 2014 exclusion is not enough to reject a Compassionate Appointment Claim when the State has issued a later circular on the same subject, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, in a case brought by the son of a deceased work-charged employee.
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order rejecting the compassionate appointment claim of the son of a deceased work-charged/contingency employee, and has sent the claim back to the competent authority for a fresh, reasoned decision within four months [Deepchand Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh partly allowed the writ petition by an order dated October 28, 2026, at the Principal Seat in Jabalpur.
The question the Court framed
The Court asked whether the claim had been examined “with due regard to the subsequent circular dated 31.08.2016”. Noting that Rahul Kewat had followed the Supreme Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Abhishek Kumar, it held:
“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.”
According to the Court, the 2016 circular must be read against the nature and status of the deceased employee’s service, the establishment where he worked, and the conditions governing compassionate appointment. It was equally clear about what it was not deciding:
“This Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the petitioner to compassionate appointment.”
From a death in harness to the rejection of May 2023
Girdhari Lal Patel, a work-charged/contingency employee, died in harness on June 15, 2022, and his son Deepchand Patel sought compassionate appointment. In an earlier petition, W.P. No. 1216/2023, the High Court on March 27, 2023 directed the authorities to decide his representation by a speaking order under the applicable State policy.
The authorities recorded on May 16, 2023 that dependants of work-charged/contingency employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment under the General Administration Department circular of September 29, 2014. The claim was rejected the next day, May 17, 2023, mainly because the policy provided a compassionate grant instead of appointment.
What each side submitted
For the petitioner, Advocates Manan Agrawal and Shubham Mishra argued that the rejection ignored the later GAD circular of August 31, 2016 (No. C-5-1/2016/1/3), which provides for considering compassionate appointment for dependants of work-charged and contingency employees, subject to the scheme’s conditions. They relied on a coordinate Bench order of January 20, 2025 in Rahul Kewat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 3849/2020), which quashed a similar rejection and remanded the matter.
Panel Lawyer T.K. Khadka, for the State, said clause 11.1 of the 2014 circular excludes such dependants, and that under the 2016 circular the family is entitled to a compassionate grant of Rs 2,00,000. He submitted that the petitioner’s mother was told of the payable benefits but refused to collect them.
Fresh decision in four months
The order of May 17, 2023 passed by respondent No. 4 was set aside. Respondent No. 2 must reconsider the claim afresh in accordance with law and in light of the Rahul Kewat order, pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order within four months of receiving a certified copy, and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.
What the order means
Compassionate appointment is not a right of inheritance; it is a concession governed by the policy in force. That cuts both ways. Just as a claimant cannot demand a job outside the scheme, the State cannot reject a claim by reading only the older, exclusionary part of its own policy while leaving out a later circular on the same subject.
For families of work-charged and contingency employees in Madhya Pradesh, the order means the 2016 circular has to be applied to the facts of each case, including the deceased’s establishment and the claimant’s eligibility, before a claim is turned down. The final outcome remains open.
Case Title: Deepchand Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Writ Petition No. 12820 of 2023]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:86774
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
For the Petitioner: Manan Agrawal and Shubham Mishra, Advocates
For the State: T.K. Khadka, Panel Lawyer