The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Aanand Babele

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Writ Court. The Court held that the petitioner's father, as an employee whose salary was disbursed from the MGNREG Scheme (a centrally funded scheme), was not an employee whose salary was paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State Government. The Court found that while funds for such schemes might be routed through the Consolidated Fund, they do not originate from it, distinguishing between receiving funds and the funds being part of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment under the State Government's scheme as interpreted by the State. The Court, however, directed the State to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within their own unit (Janpad Panchayat) as per Clause 9 of the circular dated May 28, 2021, and Clause 11.5 of the policy dated July 22, 2023, if any such appointment is available, to support the family.

Facts

The petitioner's father, an Assistant Accounts Officer on contract with Janpad Panchayat, Datia, died of COVID-19 on May 24, 2021. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but was initially informed he had not attained the mandatory age of 18. After turning 18 on September 28, 2022, his subsequent application was rejected on November 6, 2024. The petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.No.7827/2025), which was allowed by the learned Writ Court on August 26, 2025, setting aside the rejection order and directing consideration of the application on merits. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the late father of the petitioner, an employee on contract with Janpad Panchayat, Datia, was an employee receiving salary from the Consolidated Fund of India or not, as per the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment under the State Government's scheme for COVID-19 deceased employees. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel supported the order of the learned Writ Court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. State's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's father was a contract employee whose salary was disbursed under the MGNREG Scheme, which is partly funded by the Central Government and does not come under the purview of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They relied on Clause 3.1 of a Circular dated May 28, 2021, stating that MGNERGA employees are not covered under the scheme, and Clause 11.5 of an order dated July 22, 2023, which grants local bodies autonomy in deciding service conditions of their contract employees. The State contended that the learned Writ Court failed to consider these aspects.