Madhya Pradesh High Court, succession certificate, compassionate appointments, deceased employee, priority rights, wife’s claim, brother’s claim, legal ruling, employment policy, family rights, court decision, government officials, employee benefits, judicial review, inheritance law
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh determined that administrative authorities cannot demand a succession certificate for compassionate appointments when the relevant policy clearly prioritizes the deceased employee’s wife over other relatives.
The Court cancelled an order from the M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board that required a widow to secure a succession certificate simply because the deceased’s brother had also applied for the position.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, overseeing the case, noted that according to state policy, the wife holds the primary right, with a brother only eligible if the deceased government employee was unmarried.
The petitioner, Smt. Manisha, brought the matter to the High Court, contesting an order dated December 30, 2024, issued by the M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board.
Her husband, late Shri Jitendra Solanki, served as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in Dhar and passed away on November 12, 2023. Post his death, Smt. Manisha sought compassionate appointment in line with the State Government policy from September 29, 2014.
Meanwhile, the deceased’s younger brother, Shri Mahendra Solanki, also submitted an application for the same role. Due to these competing claims, the authorities demanded that the petitioner obtain a succession certificate from a competent court to ascertain the rightful claimant.
Smt. Manisha argued that as the legally married wife, she had priority, and the request for a succession certificate was unreasonable.
Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Vijay Kumar Patwari asserted that the compassionate appointment policy grants the wife first claim.
He argued that the policy does not permit the younger brother of a married deceased employee to seek an appointment.
Thus, the demand for a succession certificate was “arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the compassionate appointment policy,” especially since the petitioner’s marital status was undisputed.
Counsel for the Respondents Ms. Swati Ukhale (State) and Shri Abhinav Danodkar (Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4) opposed the petition, arguing that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but an exception.
They contended that the competing claims of the wife and brother necessitated the request for a succession certificate as a legitimate administrative measure under Clause 2.7 of the policy to prevent future disputes.
They cited the Supreme Court ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) to assert that no absolute right to compassionate appointment exists. Additionally, they raised concerns regarding the petition’s maintainability, citing an alternative remedy under Section 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972.
The Court reviewed the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated September 29, 2014, focusing on Clauses 2.1, 2.6, and 2.7.
The Court noted that Clause 2.1 designates the wife of the deceased government employee as the top dependent. In contrast, Clause 2.6 specifies that a brother is considered only if the deceased was unmarried.
Justice Pillai stated,
“Upon due consideration of Clause 2.1 and Clause 2.6, it becomes manifest that the wife of a deceased government servant occupies the first and highest priority for compassionate appointment. Clause 2.6, which provides for consideration of a brother, is expressly confined to cases where the deceased government servant was unmarried.”
The Court concluded that, since it was established that the deceased was married to the petitioner, the brother’s application did not create a legally recognizable competing right under the policy.
The respondents had cited Clause 2.7 to justify their request for a succession certificate; however, the Court clarified that this clause applies only when neither the husband nor the wife is alive.
The Court stated,
“The insistence on production of a succession certificate, in the considered view of this Court, is misplaced in the context of compassionate appointment… This Court is of the opinion that where the policy itself clearly identifies the eligible dependent and the order of priority, the administrative authority cannot introduce an additional requirement, such as a succession certificate, which has the effect of defeating or delaying the object of the policy.”
Also Read: Compassionate Appointment Is Final, No Second Chance for Higher Post: Supreme Court
The Court dismissed the respondents’ objection regarding alternative remedies, asserting that the issue concerned a violation of policy and an arbitrary exercise of administrative power, warranting intervention by writ jurisdiction.
The High Court granted the writ petition, quashing the order from December 30, 2024. The Court stated that the order reflected a failure to apply the governing policy correctly.
It directed the respondents to process the petitioner’s application “strictly in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy dated 29/09/2014, expeditiously and in accordance with law, without insisting upon submission of a succession certificate.”
Compliance with this order must be ensured within 60 days.
Case Title: Smt. Manisha Vs. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
