Gujarat High Court
Mumtazbibi Alamkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3264 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MUMTAZBIBI ALAMKHAN PATHAN & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIG MANSURI(444) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Learned advocate Mr. M.I.G. Mansuri appearing for the petitioners and Learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala for the respondent - State at length.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief.
"A. Admit and allow this petition,
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the rejection order at Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Annexure-G to this petition qua the petitioner no.2 which reflect the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the concerned authorities in not considering the case of the petitioners for giving him appointment on compassionate ground and be pleased to hold that the petitioner no. 2 is entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground as per the policy which was prevalent at the relevant point of time when the application was made by the petitioners and/or to pay a lump sum amount of compensation to the petitioners if they are so entitled to it;
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for giving him an appointment on compassionate ground as per the policy which was prevalent at the relevant point of time when the application was made by the petitioners and/or to pay a lump sum amount of compensation to the petitioners if they are so entitled to it;
D. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for giving him appointment on compassionate ground as per the Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined policy which was prevalent at the relevant point of time when the application was made by the petitioners and/or to pay a lump sum amount of compensation to the petitioners if they are so entitled to it in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;
E. To call for the relevant records and proceedings of the present case and examine them, F. Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would state that husband and father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively died in harness during the course of his employment with respondent on 27.09.2004 and at that time, petitioner No.2 being minor, an application came to be made by his mother - petitioner No.1 to get compassionate appointment. It is further stated by the learned advocate Mr. Mansuri that vide letter dated 21.02.2005, the respondent - Authority advised petitioners to approach again when petitioner No.2 attained the majority. When petitioner No.2 attained the majority, an application came to be made by them before the respondent - Authority in the year 02.08.2009, Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined which came to be rejected by respondent - Authority vide its impugned communication dated 02.12.2009 on the ground that the application is beyond limitation period so prescribed as per Government G.R. dated 10.03.2000.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would respectfully submit that as per the Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. of State, whereby compassionate appointment can be granted to dependent family member, it has been specifically stated that on attaining the majority by dependent family member, he/she can apply to get compassionate appointment thereby, petitioners approached the respondent - Authority in the year 02.08.2009 as petitioner No.2 became the major on 04.02.2009, thereafter, they have immediately approached the respondent - Authority who ought to have considered the application and ought to have granted the compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would respectfully submit that ground on which the claim of the petitioners rejected by respondent - Authority, that is delay in approaching Authority to get the compassionate appointment, is not sustainable, inasmuch as, at the relevant point of time, petitioner No.1 approached Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined respondent - Authority in time who advised her to approach again when the petitioner No.2 - son got major. It is respectfully submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri that when petitioners have approached respondent - Authority in the year 2009 and petitioner No.2 holding requisite qualification to secure compassionate appointment, such right could not have been denied by respondent - Authority on technical grounds of delay. Making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mansuri requests to allow the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala has taken me through the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent whereby would contend that petitioners' claim as made in the year 2009 is hopelessly time-barred and would not fall within any of the parameters so set out in G.R. dated 10.03.2000. It is respectfully submitted learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala that when husband and father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively died in the year 2004, at the given point of time, either petitioner No.1 or any other elder dependent family member of deceased employee could have requested to get compassionate appointment, but at that point of time, petitioners have thought it fit not to claim Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined such benefits claim of compassionate appointment, rather waited till petitioner No.2 became major. So, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief as per aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000. 4.1 Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala further respectfully submits that petitioner is misconceived in his notion by reading Clause 8(b) of said G.R. dated 10.03.2000 whereby wrongly believed that until the petitioner No.2 became major, there was no need to file an application by any other adult dependent family member including petitioner No.1. It is submitted by learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala that reading entire Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000 would indicate that to give immediate financial help to family member of deceased employee, there was no requirement whereby minor member had to wait till he attained the majority, inasmuch as, either widow, widow over or any adult dependent family member can apply for compassionate appointment and they have to accept it. Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala relied upon the judgment passed by this Court on 08.07.2025 in Special Civil Application No.10270 of 2018. So making the above submissions, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined would request to this Court that this petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through their respective pleadings and documents submitted in support of that, it is clear that at given point of time and for husband and father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively died in the year 2004, either petitioner No.1 being his widow or adult family member, i.e., youngest daughter/sister of petitioners respectively, could have claimed for compassionate appointment which unfortunately not done so by them. As per Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000 would indicate that to give immediate financial help/need to dependent family member of deceased employee who lost their bread earner, the scheme of compassionate appointment floated by State. As such, there was no need to wait for any adult member of dependent family of deceased employee till one minor member attained majority to claim for compassionate appointment. The submissions so made by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri contrary to aforesaid is not sustainable as bare reading of Clause 8(b) of aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000 would clearly prescribe that within six months from Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined sad demise of deceased employee, any dependent adult family member of deceased employee requires to claim for compassionate appointment and as per their qualification, respondent - Authority shall have to consider such claim on its own merit.
5.1 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to pertinent observation so made by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hardevbhai Baldevbhai Desai V/s. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.10270 of 2018 dated 08.07.2025, wherein it has been observed as under:
"5.5 Under the circumstances, it clearly comes out from the record that the petitioner's father has expired on 17.05.2009, the petitioner has made an application on 20.07.2009, which, in fact, within stipulated time, but, since the petitioner was a minor at the relevant point of time, the respondent authority has rejected the said application on that ground as per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. Further, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has made an application to the respondent authorities on 01.05.2010, it was rejected by the respondent authorities in view of the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 that the any major dependent has to make an application within a period of six months after the sad demise of the employee and if the concerned dependent, is minor at the time of death of the Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined employee and the major dependent i.e. wife of the deceased employee did not make any application for getting compassionate appointment, then the authority should not wait for attaining the majority of that minor dependent. Therefore, the authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the mother of the petitioner has never made an application for getting compassionate appointment for the results best known to her. Further, the mother of the petitioner has made an application for getting lump sum compensation in lieu of appointment, which is also required to be rejected in view of the subsequent Government Resolution that once the application has been rejected earlier by the authorities. The concerned person cannot apply again for the lump-sum compensation.
6. We cannot overlook the object of the scheme. The object of the compassionate appointment scheme is to give relief in financial stringency and to assist the family to cope with unexpected critical situation by giving compassionate appointment to one member of the dependent family of the employee who died during service leaving the family in helpless condition without any means of livelihood. In the present case, indisputably, the petitioner has made an application after the prescribed time limit of six months from the sad demise of his father, as the petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time and the widow has not made any application for getting said benefit. Therefore, the present petition needs to be dismissed.
7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank versus Ajithkumar G.K. reported 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74716, more particularly paras : 24 to 28 thereof, which read as under :
"24. We have noticed the core issue arising for decision as well as the guiding legal principles for appointment on compassionate ground hereinabove. As observed earlier, decision on the core issue would also require us to answer certain sub- issues. We propose to answer them too in the process.
25. The first sub-issue is in relation to the lapse of time since the respondent's father passed away. It has been in excess of two decades. It does not require anyone to put on a magnifying glass here to assess the time that has been taken for the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment to be finally decided. The parties have reached the third tier in the second round. One of the foremost factors for appointment on compassionate ground is that the same should be offered at the earliest. Unless appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate hardship arises, tiding over the immediate financial crisis owing to (i) sudden premature and untimely death of the deceased employee or (ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the employee's unfitness to continue in service, - for which benevolence is shown by offering an appointment - may not exist and thereby the very object of such appointment could stand frustrated.
26. More often than not, spurned claims for compassionate appointment reach the high courts or even this Court after consuming substantial time. The ordinary rule of litigation is Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined that right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the suitor entered the portals of the court. The relief that the suitor is entitled in law could still be denied in equity on account of subsequent and intervening events, i.e., events between the date of commencement of the litigation and the date of the decision; however, law is well-settled that such relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum for no fault of the suitor [see : Beg Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. [50] ]. It would, therefore, not be prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by the court(s) to decide the issue before it.
27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection.
28. The death of the respondent's father, in this case, occurred in December 2001. Now, we are in 2025. The respondent cannot be blamed for the delay, since he was diligently pursuing his claim before the appellant and thereafter before the High Court. Thus, irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration of the same on merits.
Emphasis supplied 5.2 Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and as per the plain reading of Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000, no case is made out by the petitioners to claim compassionate appointment.
5.3 Before parting, I would like to further observe that death of employee in the present case took place in the year 2004, whereas claim made by petitioner No.2 having attained the majority in the year 2009 and after rejecting such claim in the year 2009 itself, petitioner appears to approach this Court by way of this petition in the year 2013. All these aspects would be taken note out by this Court, this would be an additional ground to reject the claim of the petitioner to get compassionate appointment, inasmuch as, petitioners could survive themselves for this many years without any financial help received from respondent - State. There is no need to consider such claim of petitioners. (See : Steel Authority of India Limited V/s. Gouri Devi, reported in (2022) 17 SCC531.) Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
6. In view of above foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the present petition, which requires to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:54 IST 2025