Gujarat High Court
Lilaben Veljibhai Makwana Wd/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9730 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LILABEN VELJIBHAI MAKWANA WD/O TULSIBHAI RATNABHAI VAGHELA
& ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondents - State Authorities
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
"14(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or orders etc of the appropriate nature, quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of Respondent Vide Deputy Director's No.D-4/U.N.SA/Late Shri Tulsibhai Vaghela/18/35998 dated 11.12.2018 annexed as Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Annexure-A. And Respondent's may be directed to grant payment of lumps-um Financial Assistance to the Petitioner(s) family under relevant Scheme, with interest at the rate as the Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstance of the case."
2. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates, this matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal today. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Gogia for the petitioner has submitted that reading of the impugned order dated 11.12.2018, whereby the respondent authorities have rejected the application for lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the petitioner/s. He has further submitted that the moot question required to be considered shall be the meaning and interpretation and applicability / eligibility of the scheme to the petitioner/s in the facts of the case where the petitioner - widow is working as Gramin Dak Sevak in Postal Department whether can be considered as an Government Employee or not. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AIR 2019 SC 1493.
3.2 He has further submitted that the respondent Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined authorities have passed the impugned order based on the GR dated 05.07.2011, more particularly Clause 3(5) thereof. He has submitted that the petitioner/s is not an employee of the Central Government in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the petitioner/s is entitled to get lump-sum compensation under the GR dated 05.07.2011. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed. 4.1 Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Pooja Ashar for the State Authorities has vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the State authorities. She has tendered a copy of the communication dated 14.05.2013 received from the office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, whereby it transpires that the amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner/s and family pension is fixed. 4.2 She has further submitted that on receipt of the application from the petitioner for getting lump-sum compensation as per the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, the respondent authorities concerned have come to the knowledge that the petitioner/s was working in the Postal Department and on being sought the details from the Post Department, it was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities that the petitioner/s is working in the Indian Postal Service on Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the post of Gramin Dak Sevak having a pay scale of Rs.3635-65-5585. The Postal Department has also send the salary slip of the petitioner/s for ready reference. Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.
4.3 She has submitted that the petitioner/s has wrongly interpreted the GR dated 05.07.2011 that the post on which the petitioner is working is not a sanctioned post of the State Government or Central Government employee and therefore, the Clause 3(5) of the GR is not applicable to the present petitioner/s. She has further submitted that the broad meaning of the GR dated 05.07.2011 is that the dependent husband/wife of the deceased employee should not have been employed at the time of the death of the employee. Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner/s keeping in mind the object of the scheme for providing lump-sum compensation to the dependent. She has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. From the record, it transpires that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined of petitioner No.2 - Tulsibhai Ratnabhai Vaghela was working as Sweeper in Civil Hospital, Rajkot. He has expired on 05.05.2012. Therefore, petitioner No.2 has made an application for compassionate appointment immediately. The said application was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that the scheme for providing compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee is not in existence as it is replaced with the scheme of providing lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment vide GR dated 05.07.2011.
5.2 At this stage, we cannot overlook the object of the scheme. The object of the Gujarat Government's Resolution of 05.07.2011 for lump-sum compensation is to provide immediate financial relief to the families of deceased government employees who face sudden financial hardship, enabling them to cope with the crisis when a compassionate appointment might not be suitable or possible. This scheme replaces the previous compassionate appointment policy, offering a direct financial payment as a one-time succor to the family.
5.3 In view of above, the key aspects of the object of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 are as under :
Immediate Financial Relief : The primary goal Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined is to provide swift financial assistance to the family to help them manage the economic crisis following the death of the sole breadwinner. Alternative to Compassionate Appointment : The lump-sum compensation was introduced as an alternative to compassionate appointment, acknowledging that providing employment might not always be the best or most feasible solution. Addressing Sudden Crisis : The compensation aims to help the family cope with the sudden, unexpected financial stringency that arises from the death of an employee.
One-Time Succor : The payment is intended as a singular, one-time benefit to support the family during their difficult period, rather than being a continuous source of income 5.4 It is a matter or record that the petitioner/s - the widow is working in the Department of Post and is therefore earning. The object of the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, noted above, would be to provide swift financial assistance to the family to help them manage the economic crisis following the death of the sole breadwinner.
5.5 It is pertinent to note here that the respondent Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined authorities have time and again informed the petitioner/s to apply for getting lump-sum compensation, however, for the reasons best known to the petitioner/s, the application for getting lump-sum compensation has not been made by the petitioner/s for about four years. The demeanor of the petitioner/s smacks a lot. Thus, it transpires that the petitioner/s was not in need of financial assistance at that time.
5.6 In view of above as well as looking to the object of the scheme, this Court finds that while framing the scheme by the Government, it was kept in mind that the compensation aims to help the family cope with the sudden, unexpected financial stringency that arises from the death of an employee. In the present case, this Court does not find any financial stringency arisen. Therefore, this petition needs to be dismissed.
6. Further, with regard to the contention that whether the petitioner/s - widow, working as Gramin Dak Sevak in the Postal Department, can be considered as an employee of the Government or not is concerned, this Court finds as under.
(i) Firstly, that is not the issue on hand before this Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Court that whether the petitioner/s - a widow is a Government employee or not.
(ii) Secondly, the object of the scheme i.e. G.R. dated 05.07.2011 speaks otherwise. It is not on 'Government employee' or 'Non-Government employee'. As noted above, the object to provide swift financial assistance to the family to help them manage the economic crisis following the death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case, the deceased employee was not the sole breadwinner in the family. The petitioner/s -
widow is also working the Postal Department indisputably.
(iii) Thirdly, the respondent authorities have time and again informed in writing to apply for the lump- sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the Government and provide necessary details / information for about four years, however, the petitioner/s did not pay any heed towards it and applied for getting financial assistance.
7. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined respondent authorities have rightly rejected the application for lump-sum compensation of the petitioner/s in view of Clause 3(5) of the G.R. dated 05.07.2011. The said G.R. should be read with its objection in its true spirit and not in isolation. The petitioner/s has misinterpreted the said G.R. dated 05.07.2011. Therefore, the impugned decision of the respondent authorities is just and proper and this Court does not warrant any interference in it.
8. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioner any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of that decision with such facts. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as meritless.
9. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:10:11 IST 2025