Brother Cannot Defeat Wife’s Claim for Compassionate Appointment; Succession Certificate Not Required

Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure designed to provide immediate relief to the family of a government employee who dies in harness. The objective is not to distribute employment as inheritance but to prevent destitution and financial crisis for those dependent on the deceased. Courts across India have repeatedly held that such appointments must be governed strictly by the applicable policy and cannot be subjected to extraneous procedural hurdles.

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that a brother of a deceased married employee cannot defeat the wife’s preferential claim to compassionate appointment. The Court further held that authorities cannot insist on a succession certificate when the policy clearly recognises the wife as the first eligible dependent. The decision in Smt. Manisha v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board (2026:MPHC-IND:3152) provides crucial clarity on the scope of compassionate appointment schemes and the impermissibility of importing civil succession principles into them.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Smt. Manisha, was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Jitendra Solanki, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dhar. After his death in service on 12 November 2023, she applied for compassionate appointment under the State policy, submitting all required documents. Subsequently, the deceased employee’s younger brother also filed a similar application.

Faced with these competing claims, the department directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate from a civil court before her request could be considered. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court contending that:

• The compassionate appointment policy grants first priority to the spouse;
• A brother is eligible only if the deceased was unmarried;
• Requiring a succession certificate was arbitrary and beyond the policy.

Issues

The Court considered three fundamental questions:

1. Whether a brother of a deceased married employee has any independent right to seek a compassionate appointment.
2. Whether the authority can insist on a succession certificate despite the policy prescribing a clear order of preference.
3. Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked against such administrative insistence.

Policy Framework Governing Compassionate Appointment

The Madhya Pradesh compassionate appointment policy dated 29.09.2014 lays down a hierarchical order of dependents:

• Clause 2.1: Wife or fully dependent husband is first in priority.
• Clause 2.2: Son or unmarried daughter nominated by the surviving spouse.
• Clause 2.6: Brother or unmarried sister only if the deceased employee was unmarried.
• Clause 2.7: Applies when neither spouse is alive.

This structure makes it evident that in the presence of a surviving spouse, claims of siblings have no legal foundation.

Court’s Analysis

1. Brother Has No Competing Right

The High Court categorically held that the policy does not recognise a brother as an eligible dependent when the deceased employee was married. Since the petitioner was the legally wedded wife and her status was undisputed, the brother’s application could not create a “competing claim” in law.

2. Succession Certificate Alien to Compassionate Appointment

The Court observed that succession certificates are meant for determining rights over estate and terminal benefits, not for deciding eligibility under a welfare employment scheme. Compassionate appointment is governed solely by policy criteria and not by principles of inheritance. Importing such a requirement defeats the very purpose of providing speedy relief to the bereaved family.

3. Administrative Overreach

By insisting on a succession certificate, the authorities effectively added a new condition not contemplated under the scheme. The Court held that executive authorities cannot rewrite policy through administrative instructions.

4. Writ Petition Maintainable

The respondents argued that an alternative remedy existed under the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam. The Court rejected this objection, holding that violation of a statutory policy and arbitrary action are valid grounds for invoking writ jurisdiction.

Key Findings

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 and directed the department to consider the petitioner’s claim without insisting on a succession certificate. The ruling emphasised:

• Compassionate appointment is not an inheritance but a social security measure.
• Eligibility must be tested strictly within the four corners of the policy.
• Administrative convenience cannot override substantive rights of the spouse.
• Delay through unnecessary civil proceedings frustrates the scheme’s objective.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling is a humane and legally sound interpretation of compassionate appointment law. It reiterates that welfare schemes must be implemented with sensitivity and not converted into battlegrounds of succession disputes. By holding that a brother cannot defeat the wife’s claim and that a succession certificate is irrelevant, the Court has protected the dignity and security of bereaved families.

This judgment will serve as an important precedent across States where similar policies operate, ensuring that the original intent, immediate relief to the dependent spouse and children, is not lost in procedural technicalities.

Important Link