Madhya Pradesh High Court orders State to grant compassionate appointment to man who lost parents to accident in 1994

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State government to grant compassionate appointment to a man nearly thirty years after he lost his parents in a road accident [Rohit Shukla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh]..Rohit Shukla, 38, was nine years old when his father and mother died in the road accident. On attaining majority in 2003, Shukla sought compassionate appointment from the Water Resources Department, where his father was employed at the time of his death..After the government denied him the benefit, Shukla filed a petition before the High Court for relief. .Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the State’s argument that compassionate appointment could have been sought by Shukla only within seven years of the death of his father.The Court called the argument “misconceived”, while taking into account a circular issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) in 2004 which allowed a dependent minor to apply for compassionate appointment within one year of attaining the age of majority. .From the records, the Court found that Shukla attained majority on June 6 in 2003 and that he had applied for compassionate appointment on June 24 that year. Therefore, the Court concluded there was no delay on Shukla's part and held that he could not have been denied compassionate appointment on this ground..The State had earlier offered Shukla the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak (contractual teacher) as there was no vacant post of Assistant Grade II or III available. However, he turned down the offer and approached the High Court.The State submitted before the High Court that the petitioner’s compassionate appointment case was closed after he did not accept the contractual post. The Court, however, rejected this submission, saying,“The petitioner is entitled for the compassionate appointment on the regular vacant post and he cannot be offered the contractual appointment.".The Court also rejected the State’s argument that since Shukla survived for such a long period, he was not in need of financial assistance or entitled to compassionate appointment. “The respondents in the present case have not come with a specific plea that petitioner is engaged in another job or earning well, on the contrary when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, he was just 18 years old and he was not earning at all,” the Court noted.It added that Shukla cannot be penalized by saying that his application has been pending for a long period, since he was not to blame for such a delay. .Accordingly, the Court directed the State to grant the compassionate appointment to Shukla as per his eligibility within a period of three months.The petitioner appeared in person. Advocate Shikha Sharma represented the State..[Read Judgment]