Gujarat High Court
Somatbhai Bachubhai Sankhat vs General Manager, Western Railway on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2968 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SOMATBHAI BACHUBHAI SANKHAT
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - RAILWAY
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Danak appearing for the petitioner has tendered the affidavit-in- rejoinder, which is taken on record.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Heard Mr. Manoj Danak, learned advocate for Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined petitioner and Mrs. Krishna Rawal, learned advocate for the respondents - Railway, at length.
4. The present writ petition is filed by the present petitioner under Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition.
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that being the legal heir of Bachubhai Visabhai Sankhat, the petitioner is entitled permanent to get employment with the Railways on compassionate ground.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and grant employment in the grounds. Railways on compassionate D. Pending admission and final hearing, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compensation for the period Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined he was pursuing his o grievances before the various authorities of Railways, since the petitioner is facing hand to mouth situation after his father's death.
E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s in the interest of justice."
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would submit that the claim of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment due to the sad demise of his father on 30.10.1976 denied by the respondent authority without any justifiable reason, thereby violated fundamental right of the petitioner to get the compassionate appointment. It is submitted that on attaining the majority, the petitioner vide his application dated 01.11.1991 approached the respondent authority to give him compassionate appointment, but no action has been taken on such application. It is further submitted that later on, some correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent, whereby vide communication dated 25.06.2009, claim of compassionate appointment of the Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined petitioner was wrongly denied.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would respectfully submit that, the reason of denying such benefit to the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner regularized in service by the respondent authority, but same could not have been the ground to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the claim of petitioner to secure compassionate appointment is an independent claim than the regularization of service of the mother upon the death of his father. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would further submit that as on today also, the petitioner is not gainfully employed anywhere and is awaiting justice from this Court, whereby the respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is respectfully submitted that because the mother of the petitioner got regularized in her service and drawing pension, it would not be a ground to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined 5.4 Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Danak would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:-
6.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mrs. Rawal, for the respondents - Railway would respectfully submit that the present petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch as, the death of the father of the petitioner occurred in the year 1976 and the present petition is filed only in the year 2017. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in a satisfactory manner and merely because there were previous communications exchanged between the parties, it would not extend the time in any manner whatsoever, more particularly, when the respondent authority has already denied the claim of the petitioner way back on 25.06.2009 [Annexure-I].
6.2 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would further state that after the said demise of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner was appointed on a daily basis as a daily wager within two years from the sad Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined demise and later on, regularized in her service purely on compassionate ground in the year 1986. It is further submitted that the last drawn salary of mother of petitioner was Rs.10,430/- p.m. and after she retired, she was drawing revised pension of Rs.13,800/- p.m. on 01.01.2016 and Rs. 17,550/ p.m. in the year 2024. 6.3 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would respectfully submit that when any one member of the family of the deceased employee is granted the benefit of compassionate appointment, having appointed as a daily wager and later on, confirmed in her service, other family members, in the present case, the petitioner herein, cannot ipso facto as a matter of right claim compassionate appointment.
6.4 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would further submit that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and from the time when the deceased employee died in the year 1976 till date, without getting any compassionate appointment, petitioner can survive and also, the fact that petitioner is residing with his mother, who already engaged in the service of the respondent Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined authority and getting pension, the petitioner is not entitled to secure any relief as prayed in the present petition.
6.5 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
6.6 To buttress his arguments, she has placed relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(a) Steel Authority of India Limited versus Gouri Devi reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 68015 [relevant citations are 2022 (17) SCC 531 : AIR 2022 SC 783].
(b) Tinku versus State of Haryana reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74253, more particularly, paragraph-12 is relevant thereof.
7. No other and further submissions are being made by any of learned advocates appearing for respective Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined parties.
ANALYSIS:-
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the rival parties at length, and after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and so also, the documents annexed therewith, the fact which emerges from the record that by way of this petition filed in the year 2017, petitioner is claiming the benefit of compassionate appointment for the death of his father, which occurred in the year 1976,; ex facie, such claim is suffered by delay and laches and requires to be out rightly rejected by this Court on this ground alone. Nonetheless, this Court vide its order dated 29.01.2024, issued notice for final disposal on the basis of the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Danak for the petitioner to verify, "whether none of the family members of the deceased employee got compassionate appointment on sad demise of father of petitioner?".
9. After issuance of notice, the respondents having appeared filed its reply wherein clearly stated, more Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined particularly, in paragraph-10 of the reply that on the sad demise of the father of the petitioner in the year 1976, his mother has been given appointment on the post of Waterman within two years as a daily wager and later on she was confirmed in regular pay-scale in the year 1986. Thus, this fact remained uncontroverted by the petitioner, inasmuch as, no contrary evidence is coming forth on the record, except bare denial of such fact.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reply coming forth from the application, nothing would survive in the matter.
11. Nevertheless, it is required to be noted here that the petitioner for the first time claimed compassionate appointment in the year 1991 for the death of his father which occurred in the year 1976. The reason of approaching the authority with this much delayed was that the petitioner was a minor in year 1976; and having attained the age of majority in the year 1991, the petitioner filed an application dated 01.12.1991 [Annexure-A Colly]. The respondents, vide its communication dated 25.06.2009 rejected the claim of Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined petitioner made by way of his application dated 19.06.2009; thereby, the petitioner was denied the benefit of compassionate appointment. If it be so, there was no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this petition filed in the year 2017. It is an apparent delay on the part of the petitioner and it further appears that the petitioner remained silent and indolent for more than a decade on getting the response as aforesaid.
12. It is now well settled legal position of law that getting compassionate appointment by family members of a deceased employee who died in harness is not a fundamental right, and granting compassionate appointment to any of the family members would be a policy decision of the respondent authority and when granted, other family members of deceased employee cannot allow to claim similar benefit. It is further an undeniable fact that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to give immediate succor to the family who lost their bread earner. When the petitioner and his family members survived for all these years after the death of his father in the year 1976, Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined more particularly, his mother was engaged in regular service of the respondent authority purely on compassionate basis, according to my view, no case is made out by petitioner to claim compassionate appointment. [See - Steel Authority of India Limited versus Gouri Devi reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 68015:
2022 (17) SCC 531: AIR 2022 SC 783]
13. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to pertinent and relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tinku (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraph-12 observed and held thus:
"12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment."
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined (emphasis supplied)
14. Lastly, it is also required to be taken note of the fact that when this petition was filed in the year 2017, the petitioner was aged about 52 years and by now, he would be around 60 years old reaches to age of superannuation, thereby, no purpose will be served by directing the respondent to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, which otherwise, he is not entitled for.
15. Thus, view it from any angle and due to foregoing reasons and position of law stand as on date, there is no merit in the claim of petitioner, which requires to be rejected.
CONCLUSION:
16. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which is requires to be dismissed and, thus, it is hereby dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:50:01 IST 2025