B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants-State of Gujarat through (a) secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and (b) secretary, General Administration Department, sachivalaya, Gandhinagar have challenged in this appeal the judgment and order dated 25. 2. 1994 passed by s. M. Soni, J. (as he then was) in Special Civil application No. 10119/93 filed by the respondent-original petitioner whereby the learned Single Judge directed original respondent No. 1 of the main petition, present appellant No. 1 to give appropriate appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds keeping in mind her qualification within six weeks from the date of the order. ( 2 ) THIS appeal was presented in the office of this court on 22. 3. 1994 by the appellants by filing ordinary copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-original petitioner only with a view that the appeal may not become time barred as the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days. There is no difficulty in filing the appeal in this manner. But the appellant had to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and to place it on the record after receiving the same. When this appeal was filed, admittedly, certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was not annexed, therefore, office had raised objection of certified copy of the order being not filed and the last date for removing office objection was 6. 5. 1994. Along with this objection of not filing certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge there were two other office objections also; (i) list of events and index not filed; and (ii) two sets of SCA with annexures not filed. It also appears from the record of this case that an endorsement was made on 14. 6. 1994 on behalf of the appellants that "all O. O. (office objections) are removed". Thereafter, this appeal was placed for admission before the Division Bench consisting of A. P. Ravani, J. (as he then was) and N. N. Mathur, J. on 16. 6. 1994 and it was admitted on the same day i. e. on 16. 6. 1994. Though an endorsement is made on behalf of the appellants on 14. 6. Thereafter, this appeal was placed for admission before the Division Bench consisting of A. P. Ravani, J. (as he then was) and N. N. Mathur, J. on 16. 6. 1994 and it was admitted on the same day i. e. on 16. 6. 1994. Though an endorsement is made on behalf of the appellants on 14. 6. 1994 that all office objections are removed, we find from the record of this case that certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing writ petition was not filed. In that view of the matter, this appeal, as it is, was required to be dismissed. However, learned agp, Mr. Dave vehemently submitted that when the appeal is already admitted by the Division Bench of this court way back in 1994 and it is pending since last 11 years then this court should decide it on merits and he had also argued the matter on merits. Therefore, we are deciding this appeal on merits also. ( 3 ) BEFORE deciding the appeal on merits, it must be stated that along with this appeal the appellants have filed Civil Application No. 1402/94 on 16. 6. 1994 for stay and prayed that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition filed by the respondent-original petitioner be stayed till final disposal of main Letters Patent Appeal, but the said application came to be rejected by the same Division bench on that very day i. e. 16. 6. 1994, however, Their lordships admitted the main appeal. It is a brief order, which we would like to reproduce, which is as under :-"mr. Y. N. OZA appears by caveat on behalf of the respondent original petitioner. In our opinion, it would not be proper to stay the operation and implementation of the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant State Government of Gujarat. Interest of justice would be served if it is directed and clarified that the implementation of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge will be subject to the result of the L. P. A. With the aforesaid clarification, the application is rejected. Sd/- (A. P. Ravani, J.) sd/- (N. N. Mathur, J.)"from the above order passed on Civil Application no. Sd/- (A. P. Ravani, J.) sd/- (N. N. Mathur, J.)"from the above order passed on Civil Application no. 1402/94, it is clear that appointment of the respondent-original petitioner was subject to the result of this appeal. ( 4 ) AT this stage, it may further be stated that the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by his judgment and order dated 25. 2. 1994 and directed the original respondent-present appellants to appoint the original petitioner within six weeks from the date of his order. The period of six weeks was over in First week of April, 1994. However, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was not complied with by the present appellants, therefore, the present respondent was obliged to approach this court by way of contempt petition. To save themselves from contempt proceedings, the appellants moved the Division Bench of this court for urgent orders on 16. 6. 1994 along with Civil Application for stay. As stated earlier, appeal was admitted on 16. 6. 1994, but civil Application for stay was rejected by a brief order, which we have reproduced earlier. After the rejection of civil Application and in view of the contempt proceedings, Mr. P. D. Patel, the then Deputy Secretary, health and Family Welfare Department ordered to issue necessary appointment to the present respondent on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the present respondent came to be appointed on the post of Junior clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 purely on temporary basis subject to the condition that she had to pass the examination by an order dated 22. 6. 1994. Copy of the said order is produced on record by Ms. Sonal Shah for respondent. Thereafter, it was decided to fix her period of probation for a period of one year from 23. 6. 1994 to 22. 6. 1995, but during that period she could not pass the examination, therefore, her period of probation was further extended for a period of one year from 23. 6. 1995 to 22. 6. 1996. Thereafter, she had passed the examination and her probation period found to be satisfactory, therefore, she was ordered to be continued on long term basis with effect from 22. 6. 1996 by an order dated 5. 12. 1996. Copy of the said order is also produced on record by Ms. Shah for the respondent. Ms. 1995 to 22. 6. 1996. Thereafter, she had passed the examination and her probation period found to be satisfactory, therefore, she was ordered to be continued on long term basis with effect from 22. 6. 1996 by an order dated 5. 12. 1996. Copy of the said order is also produced on record by Ms. Shah for the respondent. Ms. Shah also produced copy of promotion order dated 15. 3. 1999 of the respondent-original petitioner whereby the respondent was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk, Class-III in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 on purely temporary and ad-hoc basis. Today, Ms. Sonal Shah for respondent stated on instruction from her client that within a short time, the respondent is going to be further promoted. Be that as it may. ( 5 ) MR. DAVE, learned AGP for the appellants submitted that merely because she passed examination and initially appointed on the post of Junior Clerk and continued on long term basis and thereafter further promoted on the post of Senior Clerk, Class-III and she is likely to be further promoted to the higher post should not be taken into consideration by this court because her initial appointment is made subject to the result of this Letters patent Appeal. He submitted that if this appeal is allowed then her appointment has to be cancelled. Relying on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mrs. Asha ramchhandra Ambekar and Anr. reported in JT 1994 (2) S. C. 183, Mr. Dave, learned AGP for the appellants submitted that learned Single Judge of this court ought not to have issued such directions to the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. Mr. Dave submitted that at the most the learned Single Judge could have asked the appellants to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. There is lot of substance in the later part of the submission made by Mr. Dave that the learned Single Judge ought not to have straightaway issued directions to the appellant No. 1 to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. At the most the leaned Single Judge should have directed the respondent no. 1-present appellant No. 1 to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. Dave that the learned Single Judge ought not to have straightaway issued directions to the appellant No. 1 to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. At the most the leaned Single Judge should have directed the respondent no. 1-present appellant No. 1 to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the question is, can the order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside only on this ground? On facts of this case, our answer would be "no". ( 6 ) WITH utmost respect to learned AGP, Mr. Dave, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Asha ambekar (supra) will have no application to the facts of this case. In a case before the Honble Supreme Court, deceased Ramchhandra Ambekar, husband of Mrs. Asha ramchhandra Ambekar was employed as Higher Grade assistant in Sanda Branch of LIC. He expired on 11. 8. 1987. On his demise, his widow, Mrs. Asha Ambekar submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, but it was rejected by the corporation on 12. 12. 1987 on the ground that she had already exceeded the upper age of 45 years. Thereafter, second respondent i. e. her son made various representations on 8. 5. 1989, 1. 7. 1989, 18. 6. 1990 and 21. 6. 1991 seeking employment on compassionate grounds. But, by a letter dated 21. 10. 1991 the Corporation relying on its circulars dated 6. 10. 1987 and 21. 1. 1987 rejected the request. Thereupon, Writ Petition No. 3157 of 1993 was filed before the High Court by the second respondent by the son of respondent i. e. the son of Mrs. Asha ambekar praying that the Corporation be directed to appoint him on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 19. 10. 1993 and the Corporation was directed to appoint him on compassionate grounds within four weeks from the date of the order. This order of the High Court was challenged by the Life Insurance Corporation of India before the honble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 20193 of 1993 which was granted and Civil Application No. 13891 of 1994 of the Corporation was allowed by the Honble Supreme court on 28. 2. 1994 immediately thereafter on 28. 2. This order of the High Court was challenged by the Life Insurance Corporation of India before the honble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 20193 of 1993 which was granted and Civil Application No. 13891 of 1994 of the Corporation was allowed by the Honble Supreme court on 28. 2. 1994 immediately thereafter on 28. 2. 1994 by holding that; "the appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered. Further it is well-settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. . . . It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside. . . . For aught one knows, there maybe other cases waiting already for appointment on compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the 2nd respondent. Thus, apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such decision does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. " from the careful reading of the judgment of the honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Asha Ambekars case (supra) two things become clear; (i) that the high court issued directions to the Corporation against statutory rules; and (ii) initially Mrs. Asha, widow of Ramchhandra Ambekar applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, but her request was turned down on 12. 12. 1987 on the ground that she was above 45 years age. Thereafter, her son made representation for the first time on 8. 5. 1989 and continued to make representations after representations. The last representation dated 21. 6. 1991 was rejected on 21. 10. 1991 on the basis of the circulars issued by the corporation. The writ petition was filed after a considerable delay in 1993, in spite of this it was allowed by the High Court on 19. 10. 1989. Thus, on peculiar facts of the case, the Honble Supreme Court interfered with the judgment and order passed by the High court and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court whereby the Corporation was directed to appoint the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds. 10. 1989. Thus, on peculiar facts of the case, the Honble Supreme Court interfered with the judgment and order passed by the High court and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court whereby the Corporation was directed to appoint the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, deceased Dr. K. R. Nandwani was appointed in the Health Services of the appellants on 1. 4. 1986 on permanent basis. Within six years of his service, at an young age, he died on 17. 6. 1992 while in service leaving behind him his widow-present respondent-original petitioner and only one minor daughter studying in 8th Standard. On his death, his widow, Mrs. Nandwani immediately applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 28. 7. 1992 (Annexure-B) as she was facing acute financial hardships. She is double M. A. in History and Sociology and having some experience of some office work and teaching. However, nothing was heard from the Director, Ahmedabad in pursuance of her representation dated 28. 7. 1992 (Annexure-B), therefore, she made a representation dated 1. 12. 1992 to the additional Chief Secretary, Gandhinagar for appointment on compassionate ground, but the same remained undecided. Thereafter, she had made one more representation dated 22. 2. 1993 to the Honble Deputy Minister for Education and Culture, Ministry of Human Resource Development department, Government of India, New Delhi. At last, she was informed by letter dated 27. 4. 1993 that she cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground as in her case her income exceeds the guidelines prescribed by the general Administration Department. ( 8 ) AS per the averments made by the petitioner in her petition, her monthly income was hardly Rs1,818/- that too from family pension. However, in the reply affidavit, it is stated that she was getting monthly pension of Rs. 1152/= (including D. A. ). It is further stated in reply affidavit filed by Shri P. D. Patel, Deputy secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department that she was paid Rs. 38,100/= by way of gratuity, Rs. 1,27,000/- by way of Group Insurance and Rs. 10,964/= towards G. P. F. In all, she was paid Rs. 1,76,064/= and earning interest @12% on it, which would come to Rs. 1761/=. Thus, total monthly income would be Rs. 2,930/=. 38,100/= by way of gratuity, Rs. 1,27,000/- by way of Group Insurance and Rs. 10,964/= towards G. P. F. In all, she was paid Rs. 1,76,064/= and earning interest @12% on it, which would come to Rs. 1761/=. Thus, total monthly income would be Rs. 2,930/=. However, it is stated by the petitioner in her petition that while on service her deceased husband met with an almost fatal accident receiving serious injuries on his person and because of that he could not even move freely and he had to move only in wheels chair. For his medical treatment, she had incurred expenses of about Rs. 1,00,000/= and she had spent Rs. 20,000/= towards after death ceremony of her husband. She has also spent Rs. 20,000/= to Rs. 25,000/= towards treatment of her minor daughter. Thus, though she received about Rs. 1,75,000/=, out of which rs. 1,45,000/= was spent by her and only Rs. 30,000/= was left with her which she had spent during one year after the death of her husband. ( 9 ) FROM the averments made in the reply affidavit, we are shocked that the respondent-State of Gujarat considering the amount of gratuity, group insurance and g. P. F. received by the widow of deceased on the death of her husband and calculating 12% on the said amount denied the compassionate appointment. In addition to it they have also taken into consideration monthly pension amount of Rs. 1152/=, which is most ridiculous. On the death of her husband, she has become widow, but with this type of averments in the reply affidavit the State Government added woes to her pain and agony. There is a direct judgment of this court in case of Chanabhai Bababhai Maru vs. President/secretary Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat reported in 1993 (2) G. L. H. 822 wherein the learned single Judge of this court has held that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be denied to a person on the ground that the widow of the deceased employee was getting family pension, P. F. and other benefits of service. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge of this court. In our considered opinion, pension amount cannot be considered as an income of the widow for denying appointment on compassionate grounds. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had received Rs. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge of this court. In our considered opinion, pension amount cannot be considered as an income of the widow for denying appointment on compassionate grounds. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had received Rs. 1,76,064/= on the death of her husband and not a single amount was spent by her, on a hypothetical basis it cannot be said that she would have earned interest @12% p. a. on the said amount, which would come to Rs. 1761/= p. m. as calculated by the appellants. In the instant case, an young doctor died while in service leaving behind him his young widow and a minor daughter studying in 8th standard. Naturally, his widow will have to spent from the amount which she had received. If she deposits the entire amount, then what she will spent for herself and a minor daughter? In fact, she had spent Rs. 1,45,000/= out of Rs. 1,75,000/= towards the treatment and funeral of her husband and only rs. 30,000/= left with her. This is not at all controverted. Thus, on all counts, the authority was wrong in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondent-original petitioner. ##. In the instant case, after the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25. 2. 1994 the respondent-original petitioner had to approach this court by way of contempt petition as the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was not complied with by the present appellants. It is because of that only the appellants were forced to move this appeal with application for stay for urgent orders. As stated earlier, Division Bench of this court admitted the appeal, but refused to grant stay and made it clear that the appointment of the respondent-petitioner will be subject to the result of this appeal. Because of that the appellants were compelled to pass such order of appointment in favour of the respondent on 22. 6. 1994. She is double M. A. in History and Sociology, still she was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk. Later on she passed examination in 1996 and in December, 1996 she was continued on long term basis and thereafter in March, 1999 she was further promoted to the higher post of class-III Senior Clerk and serving with unblemished record. 1994. She is double M. A. in History and Sociology, still she was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk. Later on she passed examination in 1996 and in December, 1996 she was continued on long term basis and thereafter in March, 1999 she was further promoted to the higher post of class-III Senior Clerk and serving with unblemished record. As stated earlier, she is likely to be further promoted as per her seniority. Considering all these aspects and the reasons assigned in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in this Letters Patent Appeal by this court. ##. We must state that it would be highly improper and unjust to cancel the appointment of respondent-original petitioner after a period of 11 years. It will not be out of place to refer to the judgment of the Honble supreme court in case of Brij Lal vs. Board of Revenue reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128 wherein a person was allotted land and later on it was cancelled only on the ground that he was minor at the time of allotment. That matter was carried further before the higher authority, then High Court and lastly before the Honble Supreme court. By that time, the person in whose favour the allotment was made remained in possession for a period of more than two decades. Considering the same, the Honble supreme Court held that the allottee cannot be dispossessed from the land which he had nourished over a period of two decades, otherwise it would be travesty of justice. Similarly, in the instant case, the respondent-original petitioner, who is fully qualified and remained in service for 11 years and also promoted to a higher post because of her good service record cannot be asked to go home on the technical ground that the learned Single Judge could not straightaway issued such direction to the authority to appoint her. In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. .