Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Mangabhai Chauhan vs Commissioner , Mahanagarpalika on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10769/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10769 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI MANGABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
COMMISSIONER , MAHANAGARPALIKA
==========================================================
Appearance:
AVANIKA M PANCHAL(8467) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
23.02.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal,
Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No. 52 of 2005, whereby
the learned Tribunal has rejected the reference seeking
the relief of compassionate appointment.
2. It was the case of the present petitioner before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10769/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
learned Labour Court that the petitioner's mother was
appointed to the post of Sweeper (engaged in solid
waste collection) on probation with effect from
19.10.1991 and was subsequently regularized in service
with effect from 01.04.1994. Unfortunately, she passed
away on 29.04.1994. The petitioner attained the age of
majority on 29.09.2000 and thereafter applied for
compassionate appointment on 07.03.2002. However,
the competent Authority rejected the said application by
order dated 05.11.2003. The said order was challenged
by the petitioner in the year 2005 before the learned
Industrial Tribunal. After considering the evidence on
record, particularly the applicable rules governing
compassionate appointment, the learned Tribunal was
pleased to reject the reference. The said award is the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip M. Patel for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal has
rejected the reference primarily on the ground that the
petitioner's mother had not completed five years of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10769/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
service at the time of her demise. Learned advocate
Mr.Patel submits that if the initial date of appointment
of the petitioner's mother i.e. 19.10.1991 is taken into
consideration, she was on the verge of completing five
years of service. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that
at the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor, and
therefore, he could not have made an application for
compassionate appointment within the prescribed
period. However, on attaining the age of majority the
application was made which was rejected by the
Authority. Learned advocate Mr.Patel submits that no
cogent reasons were assigned by the learned Tribunal
while rejecting the reference and therefore, impugned
award deserves to be interfered with and the petition
deserves to be allowed.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate and upon perusal of the reasoning
recorded by the learned Tribunal, it emerges that the
petitioner's mother was appointed on probation with the
respondent-employer on 19.10.1991 and was
regularized on 01.04.1994. She unfortunately passed
away shortly thereafter on 29.04.1994. The petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10769/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
submitted an application for compassionate appointment
on 07.03.2002. Learned Court has referred the rules for
compassionate appointment, more particularly Rule 6,
wherein, it provides that the time limit for filing the
application is one year and in the case where the
dependents are minor then on attaining the age of
majority within one year the application has to be made.
It was further noted that Rule 13 provides that
compassionate appointment can be considered only if
the deceased employee had completed a minimum of five
years of service. In the present case, both these
conditions were not satisfied. Firstly, the petitioner
attained the age of majority on 29.09.2000 but filed the
application after nearly two years, on 07.03.2002.
Secondly, although the mother of the petitioner was
initially appointed on 19.10.1991 and regularized from
01.04.1994, she passed away on 29.04.1994, before
completing the requisite five years of service.
Furthermore, the evidence led by the petitioner
indicates that, at the time of cross-examination, he was
approximately 25 years of age. It also emerged that the
petitioner's father was employed with the Bhavnagar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10769/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Mahanagarpalika and was alive at the time of the
petitioner's mother's demise. It was further revealed
that the petitioner was aged around 20 to 22 years at
the time of making the said application.
6. Considering the cross-examination as well as the
relevant rules governing compassionate appointment,
the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the reference.
This Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in
the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal while
rejecting the claim. Accordingly, the petition, being
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
