1 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

ON THE 10

th

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT APPEAL No. 129/2026

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Versus

AANAND BABELE

Appearance:

Shri Vivek Khedkar – Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General with Shri

Ravindra Dixit – Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.

Shri Harshvardhan Sharma – Advocate for the respondent.

J U D G M E N T

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

With the consent heard finally.

The present Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of The Madhya Pradesh

Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is

preferred by the appellants/State (respondents in writ petition) being

aggrieved by the order dt. 26.08.2025 passed by learned Writ Court in W.P.

No.7827/2025, whereby Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed.

2.Precisely stated, facts of the case for adjudication are that petitioner's

father was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of Chief

Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Datia District Datia. During COVID 19

Pandemic, he was found positive and took treatment, but ultimately on

2 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

24.05.2021 he died. Petitioner being his son, submitted an application for

compassionate appointment as per the scheme of the State Govt. for the

employees who died of COVID 19. It was informed to the petitioner that he

had not attained majority and according to eligibility, age of 18 years is

mandatory requirement for compassionate appointment.

3.When the petitioner attained majority on 28.09.2022, he submitted

application for compassionate appointment, but of no avail. Therefore,

petitioner submitted representation dt.30.04.2024. When no action was taken,

he filed W.P.No.15957/2024, which was disposed of directing competent

authority to decide the pending representation within a period of four weeks.

Thereafter vide order dt.06.11.2024 representation of the petitioner was

decided and claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was

rejected. Against the said order, petitioner preferred W.P.No.7827/2025.

4.Learned Writ Court vide order dt.26.08.2025 allowed the petition and

set aside order dt.06.11.2024. Direction was also issued to respondent No.2 to

consider petitioner's application on its merits and take a decision thereon

within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of certified copy of the

order. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants/State filed the instant appeal.

5.Learned Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General appearing for

the appellants/State submits that petitioner's father was working as Assistant

Accounts Officer on contract basis in Janpad Panchayat Datia, which is a

local body. Salary of the father of petitioner was disbursed under the head of

3 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (in short

“MGNREG Scheme”) and such fund is part share of central government,

which does not come under the purview of Consolidated Fund of State of

M.P. Learned senior counsel referred Clause 3.1 of the Circular dt.28.05.2021,

according to which all the employees, who were working under MGNERGA

are not covered under this scheme. It is submitted that salary to the employees

working in MGNERGA was drawn from the fund made available by the

Central Government and since salary to the petitioner's father was not paid

out of Consolidated Fund of the State Govt., therefore, Clause 3.1 of the

circular is not applicable in the present case. Learned Writ Court did not

consider this aspect.

6. It is further submitted that Clause 11.5 of the order dt.22.07.2023

prescribes that local body, corporation, mandal, public sector, development

board, development authority and counsel are free to take decision regarding

service conditions of their contract employees. Since salary to the petitioner's

father was disbursed from MGNERGA, which does not come under purview

of Consolidated Fund of the State Govt., therefore, representation of

petitioner has rightly been rejected but learned Writ Court did not consider all

these facts and allowed the writ petition.

7.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner in writ

petition) supported the order passed by the learned Writ Court and prayed for

dismissal of the instant appeal.

4 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.The core question involved in the case is as to whether late father of

petitioner of writ petition (respondent herein), who was working as Assistant

Accounts Officer (contract) in Janpad Panchayat Datia, was an employee

getting salary from Consolidated Funds of India or not ?

10.So far as concept of Consolidated Fund of India is concerned, petitioner

placed report/document (Guide to the Finance Accounts) pertaining to

Government of Madhya Pradesh, in which Structure of Government Accounts

is discussed. Said structure is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference

because department contains all revenues received under Consolidated Fund

of India also :-

A. Board Overview of the Structure of Government Accounts

1. The Finance Accounts of the State of Madhya Pradesh present the

accounts of receipts and outgoings of the Government for the

year,together with the financial results disclosed by the Revenue

and Capital accounts, the accounts of the Public Debt and the

liabilities and assets of the State Government as worked out from

the balances recorded in the accounts. The Finance Accounts are

accompanied by Appropriation Accounts, which present

comparison of expenditure against the Grants/Appropriations.

2. The Accounts of the Government are kept in the following three

parts:

Part I: Consolidated Fund: This Fund comprises all revenues

received by the State Government, all loans raised by the

State Government (market loans, bonds, loans from the

5 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

Central Government, loans from Financial Institutions,

Special Securities issued to National Small Savings Fund,

etc.), Ways and Means Advances (WMA) extended by the

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and all moneys received by the

State Government in repayment of loans. No moneys can be

appropriated from this Fund, except in accordance with law

and for the purposes and in the manner provided by the

Constitution of India. Certain categories of expenditure (e.g.,

salaries of Constitutional authorities, loan repayments, etc.),

constitute a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the State

(Charged Expenditure) and are not subject to vote by the

Legislature. All other expenditure (Voted Expenditure) is voted

by the Legislature.

The Consolidated Fund comprises two sections: Revenue and

Capital (including Public Debt, Loans and Advances). These

are further categorised under 'Receipts' and'Expenditure'.

The Revenue Receipts section is divided into three sectors,

viz., Tax Revenue', 'Non Tax Revenue and 'Grants-in-Aid and

Contributions'. These three sectors are further divided into sub-

sectors like 'Goods and Services Tax', Taxes on Income and

Expenditure', 'Fiscal Services', etc. The Capital Receipts section

does not contain any sectors or sub-sectors. The Revenue

Expenditure section is divided into four sectors, viz., 'General

Services', 'Social Services', 'Economic Services' and 'Grants-in-

Aid and Contributions'. These sectors in the Revenue

Expenditure section are further divided into sub-sectors, like,

'Organs of State', 'Education, Sports, Art and Culture', etc. The

Capital Expenditure section is sub-divided into seven sectors,

viz.. 'General Services', 'Social Services', 'Economic Services',

6 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

'Public Debt', 'Loans and Advances'. Inter-State Settlement' and

Transfer to Contingency Fund.

Part II: Contingency Fund: This Fund is in the nature of an

imprest, which is established by the State Legislature by law, and

is placed at the disposal of the Governor to enable advances to be

made for meeting unforeseen expenditure pending authorisation

of such expenditure by the State Legislature. The fund is

recouped by debiting the expenditure to the concerned functional

major head relating to the Consolidated Fund of the State. The

Contingency Fund of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for

2021-22 is ₹ 1,000 crore.

Part III: Public Account: All other public moneys received by

or on behalf of the Government, where the Government acts as a

banker or trustee, are credited to the Public Account. The Public

Account includes repayable such as Small Savings and Provident

Funds, Deposits (bearing interest and not bearing interest),

Advances, Reserve Funds (bearing interest and not bearing

interest), Remittances and Suspense heads (both of which are

transitory heads, pending final booking). The net cash balance

available with the Government is also included under the Public

Account. The Public Account comprises six sectors, viz., 'Small

Savings, Provident Funds, etc.', 'Reserve Funds', 'Deposit and

Advances', 'Suspense and Miscellaneous', 'Remittances', and

'Cash Balance'. These sectors are further sub-divided into sub-

sectors. The Public Account is not subject to the vote of the

Legislature.

3. Government accounts are presented under a six tier classification,

viz., Major Heads (four digits), Sub-Major Heads (two digits),

Minor Heads (three digits), Sub-Heads (two digits), Detailed

7 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

Heads (two to three digits) and Object Heads (two/three/ four

digits). Major Heads represent functions of Government, Sub-

Major Heads represent sub-functions, Minor Heads represent

programmes/ activities, Sub-Heads represent schemes, Detailed

Heads represent sub-schemes and Object Heads represent

purpose/object of expenditure.

4. The main unit of classification in accounts is the Major Head

which contains the following coding pattern (according to the

List of Major and Minor Heads corrected up to 31 March 2022).

0005 to 1606 Revenue Receipts

2011 to 3606 Revenue Expenditure

4000 Capital Receipts

4046 to 7810 Capital Expenditure (including

Public Debt,Loans and Advances)

7999 Appropriate to the

Contingency Fund

8000 Contingency Fund

8001 to 8999 Public Account

8 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

11.Therefore, it appears that detail detailing of different accounts is

mentioned as shown above and source of Fund becomes important.

12.At the same time, as per circular dt.28.05.2021, which was issued by

the State Government, General Administration Department to tackle the wrath

of COVID-19 Pandemic situation and the persons, who died in harness while

performing their duties to give compassionate appointment to their

sons/daughters, who worked in different capacities and their

salary/honorarium/wages were paid through Consolidated Fund of India.

Relevant Clause 3.1 of the policy/report is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference :-

3.1. IN THT EGT COUTRT FMHAOR/UTDNYEOP/ ENHSBNLIRT hri

VEvUOERNT CGT rGRMT eNMGT rNkG/KdFMET rGRMT Ba–n/RKDS/

CiorKN/EkGcTtITKITeITENHSIRTCGrETv/MENTrGRM/ONMKGH/eNLIlAOE

ENTB

&–RNMTIN THTExTCi.fRTFM.pTCGTorEkMnHTsam

13.Therefore, it is to be seen whether funding pattern under MGNREGA is

such where payment is made from Consolidated Fund of India/State or

payment received as Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Funding pattern to meet

the cause of project undertaken in MGNREGA is discussed in Section 22 of

the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005

(hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the MGNREGA Act'). Relevant Section 22

is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

22. Funding Pattern.-(1) Subject to the rules as may be made by

the Central Government in this behalf, the Central Government

9 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

shall meet the cost of the following, namely :-

(a) the amount required for payment of wages for unskilled

manual work under the scheme;

(b) up to three-fourths of the material cost of the Scheme

including payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled workers

subject to the provisions of schedule II;

(c) such percentage of the total cost of the Scheme as may be

determined by the Central Government towards the

administrative expenses, which may include the salary and

allowances of the programme Officers and his supporting staff,

the administrative expenses of the Central Council, facilities to be

provided under Schedule II and such other item as may be

decided by the Central Government.

(2) The State Government shall meet the cost of the following,

namely:-

(a) the cost of unemployment allowance payable under the

scheme;

(b) one-fourth of the material cost of the Scheme including

payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled workers subject to

the provisions of Schedule II;

(c) the administrative expenses of the State Council.

14.From the funding pattern, it appears that funds for officers and

supporting staff working under MGNREGA scheme come as part of centrally

sponsored scheme. It does not fall under Consolidated Fund of India.

15.Office Memorandum dt.27.01.2014 issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Rural Development talks about release of fund to the State

10 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

Implementing Agencies for implementation of the Centrally Sponsored

Schemes through State Consolidated Fund but it appears that budget

provisions for this purpose were to be made under one Major Head as Grant-

in-aid. But para 2 of the Office Memorandum apparently talks about release

of fund through consolidated fund but it is not part of consolidated fund.

There is difference between getting amount to be disbursed from

Consolidated Fund and the amount falling within consolidated fund.

16.It appears that learned Writ Court glossed over these aspects and held

the employee to be falling under Consolidated Fund on pretext that Central

Govt. provides funds in lump sum and once it is received by the State, it

becomes part of Consolidated Fund. However, said contention appears to be

incorrect. Salary comes from centrally funded scheme and not from

Consolidated Fund. Salary is routed through Consolidated Fund, but not

disbursed from Consolidated Fund of State. Therefore, this case does not fall

under the category where respondent could have given the benefit of

compassionate appointment. Learned Writ Court erred in passing the

impugned order because of aforementioned discussion.

17.Resultantly, the instant appeal preferred by the appellants/State is

allowed. Order 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court in

W.P.No.7827/2025 is set aside. Order dt.06.11.2024 (Annexure P/1), which

was under challenge in the writ petition is affirmed.

18. However, one more fact deserves consideration, which persuaded this

11 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

Court to pass this direction. Circular dt.28.05.2021, which was issued by the

General Administration Department, Govt. of M.P. in the wake of COVID 19

Pandemic situation, which provides Clause 3.1 and same has been discussed

above. On the basis of above discussion, appellant is not found entitled to get

compassionate appointment by the State Govt. However, Clause 9 of said

circular provides the mechanism where persons like appellant can get

compassionate appointment in their own unit (Jila/Janpad Panchayat etc. in

the present case). Clause 9 of the said circular is reproduced hereinbelow for

ready reference of authority :-

9.JuSp/NCExHT / FM–OT / O1T2kT / CiUTDN3iT / 4e(* V5s / or6TroruHNkH7 /

UTDNMnHFMENH7 / eifNHRnTIN/TCiUTDN3iTEGTFMHa/MTsGR

&s

IN THT /NCMT EGT FM–O/O1T2k/CiUTDN3i/4e(* V5/ or6TroruHNkH7/

UTDNMnHFMENHT O

मT ENHSIRT FMHAOR

/ UTDNYEOP/ KdFMErGRMBa–n/ RKDS/

CiorKN/V9tCaCST CGrNH

&cTR7T EaT 9MEGT /NCnT FMENHT EGT JM&OaKMT CGT :C

Ha/MNT EGT JM

&;eT CGT :CT Ha/MNT EGT JM&;eT 9CnT CiUTDNT Oमs -,&EieN

a,u

&vcRT K<T /NT CEG–nmT :MT CiUTDN3iT EaT 4EI5T Ei=2ENT

8.1 EGT JiR–SR

EkGcTtITEaTBG/MGTExTVr6THERNTMs<iTsa–nmT

19.Another policy dt.22.07.2023 (Annexure P/11 of the writ petition)

issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of M.P. provides almost

similar mechanism by Clause 11.5. Same is also reproduced hereinbelow for

ready reference :-

11.5. O>TH4KG/T /NCMT EGT orBN–7T EGT JiR–SRT VMGT rNkGT FM–O/ O1T2k/

CNr/SFMET 9e?OT /UTDNMnHT FMENH/ or6TroruHNkH/VHa–/orENC

12 Writ Appeal No.129/2026

4e(* V5/@a2S/पररषद/CiUTDNhiT:MTBK/NTFMK

र/7TEaTJeMGTCiorKNTENAOSE7TEG

AkhTkN–

गTEIMGTEGTCi@ipTOमTJeMGTUTRITeITCO&.fRTFM5SHTkGMGTEGTAkh

CEOT s7–GmT 9eIacTRT BK/N- नद

र/7T ENT EFNYT CGT eNkMT C&FMv6fRT GEHN

/NhmT

20.Perusal of both these clauses of two different policies show the

intention of the State Government and that intention is that victims of COVID

19 Pandemic or because of sudden death of their bread earners, they must get

benefit in their own units where the bread earner was working. Local Self

Govt. is one such unit as referred in both circulars. Therefore, it is the

expectation of this Court that respondent shall consider the case of present

appellant in view of Clause 9 of policy dt.28.05.2021 and Clause 11.5 of

policy dt.22.07.2023 and would give compassionate appointment, if any

available, to the appellant so as to give support to his family because of death

of their bread earner in COVID 19 Pandemic situation. Needful consideration

be done within two months from the date of passing of this order.

21.Disposed of.

(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)

JUDGE JUDGE

SP