After more than seven years in service under a High Court stay, a grandson’s Compassionate Appointment Cancellation has been quashed: the Madhya Pradesh High Court says a decision taken on facts the authorities already knew cannot be reversed later when no fraud or suppression is found.
Gwalior: Authorities that appointed a grandson on compassionate grounds could not undo that decision years later on facts already known to them, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has held, as the cancellation order recorded no finding of a false document, fraud or deliberate suppression. His service is to be treated as continuous from the date of his first appointment [Suraj Sagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
Judgment in W.P. No. 4352 of 2019 was reserved on September 18, 2026 and pronounced on October 15, 2026 by Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, who allowed the petition. Advocate Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar appeared for the petitioner and Government Advocate K.K. Prajapati for the State, while Advocates Arshad Ali M. Haque and Amin Khan appeared for an intervener, a daughter of the deceased employee.
Known facts, and no fraud
Justice Bahrawat began from the settled position that compassionate appointment is an exception to normal recruitment and cannot be claimed against the governing policy, and that nomination and dependency cannot by themselves override an express eligibility condition. On the facts, however, the Court found that the petitioner had not concealed his relationship with the deceased employee, and that the impugned order recorded no finding of a false document, fraud or deliberate suppression. The dispute was about whether the appointment decision was correct, and not about later misconduct. Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, it held:
“Here also, the relevant facts were before the authorities when the petitioner’s case was considered.”
The Court also drew on Union of India v. K.P. Tiwari and on its own decision of September 2025 in Surendra Singh v. State of M.P., and took into account the petitioner’s years of continued service under interim protection. It marked out the limits of its holding: an appointment contrary to the governing rules cannot ordinarily be protected merely because some time has passed, and the ruling does not mean every grandson is entitled to compassionate appointment.
What the Court ordered
The petition succeeded, with no order as to costs. The operative direction reads:
“the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.”
The respondents must allow the petitioner to continue as Dawasaj, treat him as continuing in service from his initial appointment on August 29, 2016, and release the consequential monetary benefits admissible under law. The interim order merged with the final order. The intervener remains free to pursue her grievances in law, and the petition decided nothing on succession to the estate or retiral dues.
A grandmother’s nomination, and a cancelled appointment
The petitioner’s father died in 2008, when he was 12. He, his widowed mother, two sisters and a younger brother then depended on his grandmother, who worked as a Dai at the Government Ayurved Dispensary in Mehgaon, Bhind, and who had nominated him in her service records. She died in harness on December 6, 2015. He applied for compassionate appointment on June 9, 2016, and a Screening Committee considered the case under the State policy dated September 29, 2014 and recommended him. He was appointed Dawasaj on August 29, 2016, completed three years of probation and joined duty at Debhai in Datia.
A show-cause notice of February 12, 2018 alleged that he did not fall within the policy’s definition of dependent (Clauses 2.1 to 2.7). He replied and was called to Bhopal to record a statement. The Divisional Ayush Officer cancelled the appointment on February 18, 2019, and the High Court stayed the cancellation on March 8, 2019. Under that stay, the petitioner remained in service for more than seven years.
The competing arguments
For the petitioner, it was argued that no proper hearing or formal inquiry preceded the cancellation. The State answered that, as the son of the deceased employee’s widowed daughter, he fell in none of the eligible categories. The intervener alleged suppression of material facts and pointed to a pending succession suit at Dabra, an issue the Court said a writ petition was not the place to decide.
Where the ruling stops
The ruling applies a familiar principle of administrative law to a service dispute: a public authority that appoints someone with the relevant facts before it cannot later cancel the appointment because it has taken a different view of eligibility, unless there is fraud or suppression. That protects employees who joined in good faith, particularly where the matter took years to resolve and they served throughout.
The policy’s eligibility conditions are not rewritten, the Court made clear. The decision rests on the absence of fraud and on the authorities’ own knowledge at the time of appointment, and not on a finding that a grandson is an eligible dependent.
Case Title: Suraj Sagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [W.P. No. 4352 of 2019; Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-GWL:28572]
Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
Date of Judgment: October 15, 2026 (reserved on September 18, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar for the petitioner; Government Advocate K.K. Prajapati for the State; Advocates Arshad Ali M. Haque and Amin Khan for the intervener