Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 457 (GUJ)

Solanki Sandipbhai Manibhai v. State Of Gujarat

2025-06-13

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Riyaz Parmar on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda on behalf of respondent- State. 2. By way of this petitioner the petitioner had sought for the following prayers: 21. [A] Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorati or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the communications dated 27.04.2010 and 03.05.2010 issue by the respondents, and further be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, and/or direction/s directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on account of death of his father during the course of service on 08/11/2008 and at that time scheme for compassionate appointment was in force. [B] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim/interim relief directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment keeping in mind the fact that his father has expired during the course of service on 08/11/2008 and at that time scheme for compassionate appointment was in force. [C] Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. It would appear that late father of the petitioner who was working as a Driver Class III in the office of Mamlatdar, Petlad had expired during service on 08.11.2008 and whereas the request of the petitioner being that the petitioner may be directed to be appointed on compassionate basis. It would appear in this regard that the petitioner had upon demise of his late father made an application for being appointed on compassionate basis and whereas, the said application had been rejected by the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board (GSSB), on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Class IV employee which qualification the petitioner had to acquire within the period of six months from the date of demise of his late father. It appears that pursuant to the said decision, the petitioner had acquired the qualification i.e of passing the S.S.C. examination and had once again requested the Collector, Anand vide his communication 10.06.2011 as regards the same and further requesting that the petitioner may be granted compassionate appointment. It appears that the respondent authorities did not take any action thereupon and whereas it is in this context the present petition is preferred. It is further submitted that the petitioner in case if he is not deemed to be entitled for compassionate appointment may be granted lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Parmar on behalf of the petitioner would submit that while the objection which had been taken was as regards the petitioner not having passed the SSC examination at the time of filing of the application for compassionate appointment and whereas the petitioner having cleared the examination within a short period of time, the respondents ought to have considered the application preferred by the petitioner on 10.06.2011. It is submitted by learned Advocate that the respondents not having considered the application in reasonable time, the petitioner ought not to be prejudiced on account of the delay caused by the respondents. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that in case this Court deems it appropriate as regards non entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment then alternatively, the petitioner may be granted the benefit of lumpsum compensation as per the policy of the State Government vide resolution dated 05.07.2011. Thus submitting learned Advocate would request this Court to intervene and pass appropriate orders. 5. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Ms. Sarda on behalf of respondent- State. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner by way of the petition preferred in the year 2024 is taking to challenge orders dated 27.04.2010 and 03.05.2010 i.e the orders passed by the Subordinate Selection Board as well as the Collector, informing the decision of the GSSB. Learned Advocate would submit that the petition does not contain any reasonable justification for the delay of approximately 14 years in challenging the orders in question. 6. Learned Advocate would submit that the petition does not contain any reasonable justification for the delay of approximately 14 years in challenging the orders in question. 6. Learned AGP would submit that the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and succour to the family of the deceased and whereas approximately 16 years after the demise of the employee, no purpose would be served in giving compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased. Insofar as the policy of lumpsum compensation is concerned learned AGP would submit that the resolution itself very clearly specifies that the said policy would be applicable only in case where an application for compassionate appointment had not been rejected before the date of the resolution. Learned AGP would submit that in case of the petitioner since the claim for compassionate appointment had already been rejected by the GSSB, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of lumpsum compensation as per the Government Resolution. Thus submitting learned AGP would request this Court not to entertain the present writ petition. 7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition does not require to be entertained for the following reasons: [1] As noticed hereinabove, while the late father of the petitioner had expired on 08.11.2008, and whereas the petitioner had made application for grant of compassionate appointment, the same had been rejected at by the GSSB on 27.04.2010 which decision had been communicated to the petitioner by the Collector, Kheda vide order dated 03.05.2010. While the petitioner inter alia seeks to challenge the said orders by way of this petition, yet as pointed out by learned AGP, the present petition is bereft of any justifiable reasons for the delay of 14 years in preferring the present petition. While the petitioner inter alia seeks to challenge the said orders by way of this petition, yet as pointed out by learned AGP, the present petition is bereft of any justifiable reasons for the delay of 14 years in preferring the present petition. [2] It also requires to be noted here that while the petitioner had submitted a communication dated 10.06.2011, informing the Collector as regards the petitioner having fulfilled the requirement of passing the SSC Examination after the abovementioned rejection and whereas it is the case of the petitioner that the office of the GSSB had not considered a request made by the Collector informing the said authority as regards the petitioner having passed the SSC examination, yet it would also appear that from the year 2011, the petitioner does not appear to have undertaken any reasonable steps for resolving his grievance, rather from the annexures to the petition as well as from the averments in the petition it would clearly appear that from the year 2011 to the year 2019, the petitioner had remained completely silent. The said fact also to this Court disentitle the petitioner from claiming any intervention of this Court. [3] Furthermore, it also requires to be noted that as rightly pointed by the learned AGP that the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief or succour to the family of the deceased and whereas after 16 years of the demise of the government employee the entire purpose of grant of compassion appointment would be frustrated. [4] Furthermore it appears to this Court that the very purpose of granting appointment on compassionate basis, would get frustrated by any order of this Court in that regard. It appears to this Court that grant of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to his family to tied over the crisis, when the employed member of the family expires during service and whereas approximately 14 years after the demise of the earning member of the family, any request for grant of compassionate appointment would be without any purpose whatsoever. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor a source of appointment. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, compassionate appointment is neither a vested right nor a source of appointment. [5] At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.8842 – 8855 of 2022. In a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed about “the sense immediacy in the matters of compassionate appointment” and whereas observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 being relevant for present purpose, are reproduced herein below for benefit: “11. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds: “9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.” (emphasis by us) In the said case, the claim of the appellant-applicant therein for compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there was no lapse on the part of the appellant- applicant therein in diligently pursuing the matter. The delay in considering the application of the appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appellant-applicant. Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present case, the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners cannot be said to be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case. As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts. 12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005- 2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-State in furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. 13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained. 14. However, we must sound a strong word of reproach directed at the authorities of the Appellant-State, about the manner in which the applications for compassionate appointment of hundreds of dependents have been dealt with. Much uncertainty looms around the scope, extent and beneficiaries of the various schemes formulated by the State for governing compassionate appointment and therefore, the concerned authorities are unable/unwilling to positively decide claims for compassionate appointment. This may have ultimately resulted in prejudice to the families of many government employees dying in harness. Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. 15. The question as to whether a direction issued several years after an application for compassionate appointment, to consider and decide such application, is in consonance with the object of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment, has been answered in the negative. However, we shall also examine whether these appeals must succeed on a second count, i.e., whether there exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compassionate appointment vis-à-vis municipal employees dying in harness.” 9. Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would appear that for operation of a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment, the primary aspect to be considered is the since of immediacy in which the matters are considered and decided. Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would appear that for operation of a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment, the primary aspect to be considered is the since of immediacy in which the matters are considered and decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar situation having taken note of the fact that the applicant for the compassionate appointment had approached the High Court of Calcutta after a lapse of 10 years from the date of making application for compassionate appointment, had come to a conclusion that the sense of the immediacy in matter of compassionate appointment had been lost in the said case. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will apply with equal or if not more force in the facts of case, more particularly when one considers that petitioner has approached this Court challenging order of the year 2010 after a period of 14 years. 11. Insofar as the submission with regard to Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, i.e. with regard to grant of lumpsum compensation in clauses (5) and (6) clearly make out that the said policy would be applicable insofar as pending applications and application which would be received after the date of resolution and whereas the resolution itself prohibits considering a case of legal heirs of employees for grant of lumpsum compensation where application for compassionate appointment has been rejected before the date of the resolution. 12. Having regard to the above findings, to this Court, no case for intervention having been made out, the present petition is disposed of as rejected in limine.