Gujarat High Court
Lalsinh Magansinh Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1448 of 2017
==========================================================
LALSINH MAGANSINH SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SAFI H PATHAN(8805) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petition relates to claim by the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground which has been refused by the respondent.
2. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, while in service, passed away on 30.05.2002. Immediately on his death, the petitioner, who was minor at that point of time, made an application requesting for being appointed on compassionate ground. However, the respondents refused this claim on the ground that the petitioner was a minor, however, proactively taking note of the fact that the petitioner had an elder sister who was eligible, the respondents offered the petitioner's elder sister an appointment on compassionate ground. The Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:45:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined petitioner's sister, however, did not avail of this offer and as a consequence the offer made by the respondents to appoint a dependent of its deceased employee went unutilized. This refusal and counter offer made by the respondents was in the year 2003 i.e. immediately after the death of petitioner's father. The petitioner thereafter, in the year 2007, has renewed his request to the respondents for being appointed on compassionate ground. This was not considered according to the petitioner which led him to make one more representation in the year 2015, however, in this claim made in the year 2015, the petitioner requested for payment of lump-sum compensation in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
3. The respondents have refused this claim on the ground that the petitioner's sister had been offered an appointment in the year 2002 and since the same was not availed of, the petitioner could not seek for lump-sum compensation. Being aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
4. In my view, the refusal on the part of respondents to offer lump- sum compensation or compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be found fault with. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, though being minor, made a claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds and was informed immediately that he would not be entitled for being considered as he was a minor. It is also forthcoming and it is admitted that the respondents did offer the petitioner's elder sister an appointment but this offer was not accepted by petitioner's elder sister. The consequence of this particular refusal on the part of Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:45:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined the petitioner's sister is that the policy which was inforce as on the date of the petitioner's father death was implemented and offered to the petitioner's family but the same was refused. Once an offer of compassionate appointment is made and refused under the then existing policy, the dependent cannot thereafter make a fresh claim and that too in respect of a new policy which has come up subsequently.
5. In instant case, the lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointments was substituted by the Government in the year 2011 i.e. 9 years after the death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner cannot obviously take advantage of this particular benefit, more so, when the petitioner's family was in fact offered a compassionate appointment immediately on the death of the petitioner's father. Consequently there is no merit in this writ petition.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner however, sought to place reliance on the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA No. 11793/2014, (disposed of on 21.02.2015) to contend in that case also this Court had directed payment of lump-sum compensation in respect of a minor claimant who was only two years as on the date of death of the employee. He also submitted that the accident therein also related to the period of 1980. In my view, this judgment could be of no avail of the petitioner as in that particular case, that Court was not considering a case where an offer of appointment had been made to the dependent of an employee. In fact in that case, the employee, his wife and his daughter were killed in the road accident leaving behind only a minor two year old son as on the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:45:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined date of the accident. Considering those facts, this Court has held that the minor on attaining age of the majority was entitled for payment of lump-sum compensation. The factual situation being entirely different in this case, the judgment would be of no avail and consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(NSSG,J) Mehul Desai Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:45:24 IST 2025