The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in a common order passed by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai in Writ Petition No. 13968 of 2023 and connected Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2024, has allowed the petition filed by the son seeking compassionate appointment and dismissed the petition filed by the daughter. The petitions arose out of rival claims for compassionate appointment following the death of a government employee who was working as a driver and died in harness on 22.06.2020.
The son submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 10.12.2021 and 13.12.2021. The daughter also staked her claim. Confronted with the rival claims, the authorities issued letters dated 23.01.2024 and 06.02.2024 directing both parties to produce a succession certificate to decide their entitlement. The son approached the Court seeking a direction to grant him compassionate appointment, while the daughter challenged the said letters and sought appointment in her favour along with 1/3rd share in service emoluments.
The Court observed that these are two analogous writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of rival claims for compassionate appointment. It noted that during his lifetime, the deceased had nominated his two sons for service emoluments, which were disbursed to the sons. The daughter objected to this and initiated parallel proceedings before the Civil Court for a succession certificate.
The Court held that the approach of the respondent authorities in directing the parties to produce a succession certificate is fundamentally misconceived. It clarified that a succession certificate is a legal document issued by a civil court to lawful heirs for claiming movable assets such as bank accounts, shares, mutual funds and debts. Compassionate appointment is not a heritable estate or a property right that devolves by succession. It is a concession granted by the employer to save the bereaved family from sudden financial destitution. Therefore, insisting on a succession certificate for processing an application for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and without the authority of law.
The Court further held that the claim for compassionate appointment must be decided strictly on the basis of the policy that was in vogue at the time of the death of the employee. Thus, the compassionate appointment policy dated 29.09.2014 is applicable for determining the eligibility and priority of the dependents. The Court extracted Clause 2 of the said policy which lays down the hierarchy of eligible dependents in clear terms, giving priority first to the surviving spouse, then to son or unmarried daughter, followed by widowed or divorced daughter or daughter-in-law, and married daughter only in specified circumstances.
Applying the policy, the Court found that the daughter is a married daughter and there was no material to show that she had obtained a divorce or was living separately with any court decree. In the strict line of dependents prescribed by the 2014 policy, the son holds statutory priority and comes first, completely superseding the claim of a married daughter. The Court also noted that the son had applied promptly in December 2021. The subsequent amendment in the policy in 2023 removing distinction between married and unmarried daughters was held inapplicable since the death occurred in 2020.
The Court further observed that the affidavits and nomination by the mother cannot override the statutory priority given to the son under the policy. The reliance placed on certain judgments regarding seniority and the nature of nomination was found to be misplaced and distinguishable on facts, as the son and daughter do not stand on the same footing under the policy.
In view of the above, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the son, quashed the impugned communications dated 23.01.2024 and 06.02.2024, and directed the authorities to consider and process the son’s case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2014 policy within 60 days, ignoring the baseless objections raised by the daughter. The authorities were also directed to obtain an undertaking from the appointee regarding maintenance of the mother and other dependents, with liberty to cancel the appointment in case of breach. The connected petition filed by the daughter was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 