K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER any dependent can be denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds under the pretext that his/her widow mother would be entitled to get Family Pension alongwith some Provident Fund Gratuity and other incidental service benefits and also that the dependent son or daughter was residing with her? This in short is the question of quite some importance that arises for consideration in the present petition in the background of following facts ( 2 ) BACKGROUND - Father of the petitioner Chanabhai namely Bababhai Karsanbhai Maru was appointed by Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat [respondent No. 1 herein] in the year 1957 as a Sweeper and thereafter was confirmed on the said post and continued to serve till the time he died on 15 rendering in all services for 30 long years. As the deceased Bababhai K. Maru was the only bread-winner in his family and the petitioner being his eldest son had applied to the respondent-Nagar Panchayat for appointment on compassionate grounds as a Sweeper. Both the petitioner and his mother approached the respondents several times requesting them orally to be kind enough to appoint him on compassionate grounds however since the same failed to bring about the desired result the mother of the petitioner was ultimately constrained to give reminder application dated 27-9-1991 [annexure A ] once again requesting the respondents to accommodate his son [petitioner herein] by giving him suitable employment on compassionate grounds. It is further the case of petitioner that when one Dharmsi Kana Maru who was also working as a Sweeper under the respondents expired while on duty on 10-9-1991 his daughter Mangubehn was given appointment on compassionate ground as a Sweeper within a period of fortnight. Now despite this glaring fact for the reasons best known to the respondents on the petitioner came to be discriminated in the matter of his employment on compassionate ground he has been constrained to move this Court inter alia praying for directing the respondent-Nagar Panchayat to give him employment as a Sweeper on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father Bababhai. ( 3 ) WHILE voicing the heart burnings and reflecting the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly praying for the urgent relief of immediately appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds Mr. ( 3 ) WHILE voicing the heart burnings and reflecting the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly praying for the urgent relief of immediately appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds Mr. Padiwal the learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that not only the respondents have failed to give appointment pursuant to application dated 27-9-1991 made by the mother of the petitioner but even the reply to the same by way of a basic courtesy was not given Mr. Padiwal further submitted that in an identical case where one Dharmsi Kana Maru who also worked under the respondents as a Sweeper when he expired on 10-9-1991 his daughter Mangubehn was immediately employed on compassionate grounds as a Sweeper within a period of fortnight therefore it is indeed too difficult to understand as to why discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioner who is similarly placed On the basis of these submissions Mr. Padiwal finally urged that the respondents be directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds without fail and any further delay. ( 4 ) NOW on perusal of the record it appears that when this matter came up for admission on 3 this Court [coram: C. K. Thakkar J. ] issued a notice making it returnable on 22 Thereafter this matter went on being adjourned twice. It also further appears that in the meantime in reply to the Notice issued by this Court one Mr. H. J. Sanghvi Secretary of Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the President of the Nagar Panchayat as well as his own behalf taking strong objection to the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner on the grounds as stated in detail in paras 4 5 and 6 of the said affidavit. According to the respondents the widow of the deceased Bababhai was entitled to get Family Pension at the the rate of Rs. 645. 00 p. m. and not only that but over and above the same she will also get Provident Fund Gratuity and other service benefits. All this amount would be added in the Family Pension that may be sanctioned in favour of the widow of deceased Bababhai i. e. the mother of petitioner. Further still in view of Government Resolution to the effect that any dependent of the deceased if he/she is getting more than Rs. 600. All this amount would be added in the Family Pension that may be sanctioned in favour of the widow of deceased Bababhai i. e. the mother of petitioner. Further still in view of Government Resolution to the effect that any dependent of the deceased if he/she is getting more than Rs. 600. 00 p. m. and other service benefits then he/she is not entitled to get re-employment on compassionate grounds. It is also further pointed out that petitioner was incidentally residing with his mother and therefore cannot be said to be in that helpless situation where without employment he cannot pull on It was further contended that Nagar Panchayat was also not empowered to make recruitment on any post. In support of this contention the Government Resolution dated 19-3-1983 was relied upon which provides that no new posts should be created in the Nagar Panchayats and no post should be filled up even though it may be vacant and no new appointments should be made either by promotion or by direct recruitment. This particular Resolution is still in force. It is also contended that financial condition of the Nagar Panchayat was also not in a good state and accordingly it has not made any appointment or recruitment on any post since last seven years. Not only that but the Panchayat was not able to pay even the regular salary to its existing employees. 4. 1 Thereafter it appears that despite the reply affidavit filed by the respondents on 26-12-1991 this Court [coram C. K. Thakkar J. ] issued Rule expediting the matter by giving direct service. When the matter was called out today the Board shows that though the respondents are duly served nobody appears on their behalf. On examining the record it further appears that the petitioner has also filed a duly sworned affidavit showing that notices issued to the respondents pursuant to the issuance of the Rule have been duly served upon them on 9-2-1992 that is to say for more than 1 1 year back Thus it clearly transpires that though the respondents are duly served they have chosen not to appear; most probably thinking that the affidavit-in-reply filed by them duly meets with the contentions and that there is nothing further which is required to bed added. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner at length and further still having carefully gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents it clearly appears that the grounds on which the petitioner came to be denied appointment on compassionate grounds are totally unsustainable. To start with to refuse to give employment to the dependent [petitioner] of the deceased employee on the ground that his mother was entitled to get family pension of Rs. 645. 00 p. m. alongwith other benefits like Provident Fund Gratuity etc. etc. is absolutely unreasonable. Merely because the widow of deceased employee was entitled to some retiral benefits that by itself can never be made a ground to refuse appointment to the son of deceased employee on compassionate grounds. For this the reasons are twofold. In the first place for whatever reasons if the widow of deceased does not reside with her son and/or in the second place even supposing that both mother and son are residing together and yet in that case what ought we know if she expires leaving behind her son and other family members alone then in either of the two cases the helpless son of the deceased employee would be rendered totally destitute without any economic assistance to fall back upon It is under such circumstances that in order to vouchsafe the economic risk and the future interest of the members of the family of deceased employee that the respondents are indeed required to appoint him on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter to take totally unjustifiable shelter under the pretext that the widow of the deceased employee would be entitled to family pension and other incidental service benefits that by itself does not and cannot take the case of respondents any further and in this view of the matter this can never be made a ground to refuse appointment to the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds. In fact the above view that this Court is taking is duly supported by decision of the Supreme Court rendered in case of Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1991 S. C. p. 469 wherein on the identical pretext the employment on compassionate ground was refused which was ultimately turned-down by the Supreme Court as stated in detail in para-3 of its judgment. At this stage Mr. reported in AIR 1991 S. C. p. 469 wherein on the identical pretext the employment on compassionate ground was refused which was ultimately turned-down by the Supreme Court as stated in detail in para-3 of its judgment. At this stage Mr. Padiwal was at pains to point out that the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the widow of deceased Bababhai was entitled to get Family Pension of Rs. 645. 00 p. m. alongwith other retiral benefits has also remained a mere lip-service and pretext as no such retiral benefits in fact have been given to her. In fact for the purposes of getting the said family pension etc. the mother of the petitioner had been constrained to file a petition in this Court the same being Spl. Civil Appln. No. 7030/91 which is still pending for final hearing before this Court This also in a way clearly demonstrates the total unconcerned approach of the respondents finding out some excuses for not giving employment to the petitioner on the compassionate grounds. Is this the way the public body like Nagar Panchayat is expected to behave in a democratic set-up5. 1 Similarly it is also not possible for this Court to accept the contentions of the respondents viz. [i] that it has been directed by the State Government by a Circular dated 19-3-1983 not to create new post in the Nagar Panchayat [ii] that the financial condition of Nagar Panchayat was not in a good state and accordingly has not made any recruitment since last seven years as they do not inspire any confidence in this Court for the simple reason that if both these contentions were true how and under what circumstances daughter of the deceased Dharmsi Kana Maru was given employment on compassionate ground ? It may be pointed out that the averments of the petitioner that the daughter of Dharmsi Kana Maru was given appointment as a Sweeper on compassionate ground has not been disputed by the respondents in their affidavit As a matter of fact the aforesaid contention has no substance more particularly in view of the fact that [i] there indeed was no question of incurring any additional financial burden as the petitioner was to be appointed as Sweeper by not creating a new post but in place of vacancy created by his deceased father and [ii] the decision of Supreme Court rendered in case of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC p. 1976 wherein the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to appoint dependent of the deceased employee on compassionate ground by going even to the extent of directing that if there was no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. These are the cases wherein if financial condition of Nagar Panchayat is not that satisfactory the State has to step in to shoulder the financial responsibility in order to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee which but for the said help would be rendered totally destitute. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion when it is not disputed before this Court that [i] the petitioner is not a dependent son of the deceased employee [ii] the deceased employee was the sole bread-earner [iii] on sudden death of the employee his family was in economic distress and need assistance and [iv] the dependent is also not even otherwise incompetent to be appointed as Sweeper on compassionate ground. When such appears to be no valid justification to refuse appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Rather when such is an uncontroversial situation to refuse appointment to the petitioner is indeed too harsh and unjust as the same is patently against the accepted policy of giving employment to the dependent of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. It is really unfortunate that not only in the one breath the administration projects itself as an ideal Compassionate Master and accordingly accommodated dependent of Dharmsi Maru on compassionate ground and in another breath surprisingly taking shelter behind some technical plea comes out with altogether different face discriminating the case of petitioner. It is really unfortunate that not only in the one breath the administration projects itself as an ideal Compassionate Master and accordingly accommodated dependent of Dharmsi Maru on compassionate ground and in another breath surprisingly taking shelter behind some technical plea comes out with altogether different face discriminating the case of petitioner. If such double standards on face of it are not the patent injustice then what else it is ?6. 1 Further it is also really unfortunate that though the mother of the petitioner had addressed an application to the respondents to give employment to her son on compassionate grounds yet the same has not been replied to In fact it appears to this Court that whenever any such application is made by the dependent for being appointed on compassionate ground then the same looking to the absolute urgency of the matter is required to be dealt with and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In this regard it has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Padiwal that the State Government by its Resolution dated 16-11-1979 issued a Circular impressing upon the concerned authorities to see that such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are dealt with and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Now in fact there are number of some such ideal circulars issued to the concerned authorities in the public interest however mere issuance of the same is hardly enough. If we mean real business then in that case the authorities issuing such circulars should not stop at mere issuance of the same but should also take further care to see that the intention and spirit behind it is duly honoured and complied with and whenever it is reported that such circulars are just ignored then in that case to mean real business and enforce the underlying intention of the circular the defaulting authorities are required to be duly censured or suitably dealt with It is only when in this particular manner the circulars are persued that it can deliver the desired result otherwise as its name suggests it will circle round and round without any meaning. In the instant case also it appears that despite the aforesaid Circular dated 16-11-1979 a grievance is voiced before this Court that the department has not cared to reply application made by the mother of the petitioner. In the instant case also it appears that despite the aforesaid Circular dated 16-11-1979 a grievance is voiced before this Court that the department has not cared to reply application made by the mother of the petitioner. This clearly shows that the said Circular has been conveniently shelved. 6. 2 Further having regard to the urgency of the problem and the policy adopted by the State Government and other statutory corporations of giving employment to the dependent of the sole bread-earning deceased employee on compassionate ground all the concerned are expected to honour and implement the same as efficiently as possible without any murmur hesitation or hood-winking. In fact it appears to this Court that moment any employee serving either in the Government or its Statutory Corporation unfortunately dies in harness it would be highly in public interest and therefore desirable if the head of the concerned depart-ment taking notice of the same volunteers of his own to inquire in the first instance whether the deceased employee was the sole bread-earner and in his absence his family was rendered destitute needing any economic assistance and in the second instance by taking follow-up action by giving suitable appointment; if indeed the case is made out. In the opinion of this Court this anxiety on behalf of the head of department is necessary in the country of ours where the illiterate ignorant masses unaware of such beneficial social policy may not miss the bus and ultimately replied that they have missed the same by not approaching in time. In such cases of giving appointment on compassionate grounds the State Government and the Statutory Corporation are indeed supposed to be an ideal masters and the custodians of the interest of not only its employees but their family members too as this is the better recognition and homage to the services rendered to the department by the departed employee. It is only when this sort of positive attitude of the concerned head of department towards his employee is evinced then and then only we can claim that our public services are duly public-oriented with sense of duty and love for the fellow employee. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. It is only when this sort of positive attitude of the concerned head of department towards his employee is evinced then and then only we can claim that our public services are duly public-oriented with sense of duty and love for the fellow employee. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take immediate steps for employing the petitioner on any suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Office Registry is directed to immediately [i] give a copy of this judgment to the petitioner and [ii] to forward a copy of this judgment to the respondents. Rule made absolute. 0 order accordingly. .