A long delay of nearly three decades led the Madhya Pradesh High Court to dismiss a plea by a married woman seeking a job on compassionate grounds following her father's death. Justice Vivek Agarwal held that compassionate appointments are designed to provide immediate relief to families facing sudden financial crisis, not as an alternative route to public employment decades after a breadwinner passes away.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Rampyari Dhurve, who challenged a July 2020 order by Western Coalfields Limited rejecting her claim for a job after her father, Kajju, died in October 1998. While the court refused to grant relief due to the 28-year gap since the employee's death, it included a protective clause allowing the woman to seek revival of her petition if she meets one condition.
What happened in court?
The petitioner contended through her counsel that being a married daughter does not disqualify her from seeking compassionate employment under public sector rules. Her advocate argued before the single bench that Western Coalfields Limited acted arbitrarily by rejecting her application, as married daughters hold equal rights to apply for jobs on compassionate grounds when a parent dies in service.
Counsel representing Western Coalfields Limited opposed the petition, maintaining that the rejection order was fully justified under settled law. The management pointed out that the family had survived for decades since the employee's death in 1998, and that the deceased worker's widow, Millo Bai, was already being compensated through a monthly family pension.
How did case reach High Court?
The record revealed a long history of shifting claims by the deceased employee's family. Following Kajju's death in October 1998, his widow initially applied to secure a compassionate appointment for her son-in-law, Bheemrao. That application was turned down by the management as non-permissible under applicable schemes.
Instead of immediately pressing a valid alternative claim, the family waited until August 2019 before Dhurve submitted a fresh application seeking employment for herself. When the management rejected her application in July 2020, she moved a writ petition before the Jabalpur bench of the High Court, seeking judicial intervention 22 years after her father's death and nearly 28 years by the time of final hearing.
Why does delay defeat compassionate claims?
Examining Supreme Court precedents, Justice Agarwal emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule governing public employment. Under Article 14 of the Constitution, public sector posts must remain open to all eligible candidates through competitive selection. Departing from this general rule is permissible only under compelling circumstances, such as the sudden death of a sole breadwinner leaving a family without immediate sustenance.
The court cited foundational Supreme Court rulings, including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Sajad Ahmad Mir v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which establish that delay acts as an absolute bar to relief. The bench noted that once a family demonstrates it can survive over a substantial period following an employee's death, the immediate financial emergency disappears, making it improper to grant public employment at the expense of other job seekers.
Can case be reopened?
During arguments, counsel for Western Coalfields Limited submitted that the widow was receiving a regular family pension, confirming the family had financial support. However, petitioner's advocate disputed whether pension disbursements were actually being made to the widow.
Addressing this dispute, Justice Agarwal clarified that if family pension is indeed unpaid, the primary factual basis of the rejection changes. The bench explicitly ordered that if no pension is being paid to Millo Bai, petitioner will remain entitled to move an appropriate application for revival of her writ petition.