Gujarat High Court
Jayeshkumar Maganlal Vaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9948 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
JAYESHKUMAR MAGANLAL VANIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANSU M PADHYA(1611) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KIRIT PATEL FOR MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Padhya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Kirit Patel, learned advocate for Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :
"(a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant application dtd.23-3-2007 at Annexure-B by giving the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground with the respondent no.2;
(b) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant application dtd. 23-3-2007 at Annexure- B by giving the Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground with the respondent no.2;
(c) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para-9(b) may be granted;"
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
3. At the outset, Mr. Padhya, learned advocate, submits that despite a direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, respondent No.1, vide order dated 12/08/2009, again turned down the petitioner's request to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Dresser in the Veterinary Dispensary, Tharad, under respondent No.3, died in harness on 22/02/2007. The petitioner submitted an application dated 23/03/2007 claiming compassionate appointment, which was initially rejected by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 04/12/2008 on the ground that, considering the financial condition of the deceased's family, he would not be entitled to receive any benefit of compassionate appointment.
3.1 Mr. Padhya, learned advocate, submits that the aforesaid rejection of the petitioner's claim was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.4373 of 2009, which came to be partly allowed on 12/05/2009. By that order, the decision was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's claim as per the existing policy/Government Resolution in force on the date of the petitioner's application, i.e., 23/03/2007. It is submitted that once the decision taken Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined by respondent No.2 was quashed and set aside by this Court, respondent No.1 could not again deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the same premise.
3.2 Mr. Padhya, learned advocate, submits that under the Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000 of the State of Gujarat, it is nowhere provided that if the claimant/applicant is financially stable or the family has some source of income at the time of the deceased employee's death, such claim/application would not be entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that merely because, due to the sudden death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother received a family pension of Rs. 4,263/-, and the family received gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc., which are otherwise the service benefits of the deceased employee, respondent No.1 could not have considered or taken these amounts into account while rejecting the petitioner's claim.
3.3 Mr. Padhya, learned advocate, lastly submits that due to the sudden death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's family was placed in a very poor financial condition and was unable to make both ends meet. It in fact required compassionate appointment, which was wrongly denied.
3.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Padhya, learned advocate would request this Court for allowing this petition.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP, vehemently opposes the prayers made in this petition and submits that the case of the petitioner was considered threadbare by respondent No.1 and appropriately rejected by considering the object of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000. It is submitted that upon the sudden demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's family not only received pension but also received a reasonably good amount under the heads of gratuity, leave encashment and GPF. It is further submitted that as per the order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner's family also received annual rent from immovable property, i.e., Rs. 95,583/-, and in view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in need of compassionate appointment.
4.1 Mr. Rami, learned AGP, further submits that while remanding the matter back to the authority, this Court, in the first round of litigation, had nowhere disturbed the order passed by respondent No.2 on merits vis-à-vis the finding regarding the financial condition, which remained undisturbed.
4.2 To buttress his arguments, learned AGP relied upon the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K. - AIR 2025 SC 1232.
4.3 Likewise, Mr. Kirit Patel, appearing for Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.2, adopts the arguments Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined canvassed by Mr. Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader.
ANALYSIS :
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through their pleadings and the order dated 12/08/2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was denied, the following emerges:
(i) The father of the petitioner, who was working as a Dresser in the Veterinary Dispensary at Tharad under respondent No.3, died in harness on 22/02/2007.
(ii) As recorded in the order dated 12/08/2009, upon the demise of the petitioner's father, the following amounts were received by the family of the deceased employee:
Details Amount received by
family of deceased
employee
1. Family pension Rs.4,263/-
2. Death gratuity Rs.1,98,822/-
3. GPF Amount Rs.35,753/-
4. Group Insurance Rs.64,914/-
5. Leave Rs.41,571/-
encashment
6. Annual rent from Rs.95,583/-
immovable property
(iii) Thus, upon the death of the petitioner's father,
the family received Rs. 3,41,060/- (total of item no. 2 Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined to 4) as financial aid from State. Apart from this financial benefit, a monthly pension of Rs. 4,263/-
appears to have been received by the petitioner's mother, and the annual rent from immovable property amounting to Rs. 95,583/- was also received by the family.
(iv) Keeping all these factors in account, as per government resolution dated 10/03/2000, having assessed the financial condition of deceased employee's family, respondent No.1 found the petitioner not eligible to receive the benefit of compassionate appointment and, hence, denied such benefit.
6. It is true that at the given point of time, respondent No.2 also, on the very same ground, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 04/12/2008, which was under challenge before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.4373 of 2009, which came to be partly allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12/05/2009.
6.1 At the same time, a plain reading of the aforesaid oral judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter would only indicate that the interference made by this Court in the decision of respondent No.2 was on the ground that the Government Resolution/policy prevailing at the time of submission of the application, i.e., 23/03/2007, Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined should be considered by the respondent authority and not the policy prevailing at the time of taking the decision. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner solely on the basis of the Government Resolution/policy prevailing as on the date of the application, i.e., 23/03/2007. Nowhere in the aforesaid judgment did this Court touch upon the merits of the decision taken by respondent No.2.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that upon the demise of the father of the petitioner, the aforesaid benefits were received by the family of the deceased employee. The case of the petitioner would now be governed by the Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000, wherein, as per its object, compassionate appointment is intended to give immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee who is placed in a precarious condition due to the sudden demise of the concerned employee and who has no source of income to earn a livelihood. Clause 5(a) also speaks about giving immediate relief/help to the family to come out of financial distress.
8. From a reading of the entire Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000, it is clearly discernible that the object and purpose of giving compassionate appointment by the State is to support the distressed family of a deceased employee who has no means of livelihood and needs to be supported from come out from financial hardship, and in whose case, in the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined absence of such an appointment, the family would not be able to make their both ends meet.
9. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Padhya, learned advocate for the petitioner, are not sustainable, inasmuch as the Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000 stands on the footing that the family of the deceased needs immediate financial support, having no means of livelihood and being placed in such a precarious condition due to the sudden death of the employee that it requires such appointment. It can be gainsaid that the object of the aforesaid resolution is to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased employee, leaving them in a destitute condition without any means of livelihood. Thus, according to my view, assessment of the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee would also be a relevant factor while considering the claim for compassionate appointment.
10. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajithkumar G.K. (supra), wherein, in somewhat identical factual circumstances, after revisiting the entire case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus :
"29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9948/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in "hand-to-mouth" cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-to- mouth" cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
*** *** ***
45. The ratio decidendi of all these decisions have to be read in harmony to achieve the noble goal of giving succour to the dependants of the employee dying-in-harness, who are genuinely in need, and not with the aim of giving them a post for another post. One has to remember in this connection the caution sounded in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute."
(emphasis supplied) CONCLUSION :
11. Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and due to foregoing reasons, as well as applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajithkumar G.K. (supra) to the case on hand, I am of the view that no error has been committed by respondent No.1 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 12/08/2009.
12. In view of the foregoing conclusion, I do not find any merit in this petition, which deserves to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:48:18 IST 2025