[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vipul Chandubhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 998 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13196 of 2018
================================================================
VIPUL CHANDUBHAI PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh
for the appellant, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the
respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned advocate
Mr.Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent Nos.2 and
2. This Appeal was decided vide Judgment and
Order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
ordinate Bench of this Court and the Appeal
was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and
Order passed by the learned Single Judge in
the Writ Petition, whereby, the Writ Petition
was also dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant had
approached Hon'ble the Apex Court and Hon'ble
the Apex Court passed the following order on
14th October, 2024 :
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
Leave granted.
In paragraph 4 of the impugned order,
the Division Bench has mentioned that
the order dated 27th October, 2009 was
never challenged by the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
However, we find that in the order
dated 6th July, 2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge, it is
specifically mentioned that the
appellant had also challenged the order
dated 27th October, 2009 apart from the
orders dated 1st April, 2017 and 2nd
June, 2017. However, the Division Bench
proceeded on the footing that there was
no challenge to the order dated 27th
October, 2009 as is clear from
paragraph 4 of the impugned order. Only
on this ground, we set aside the
impugned order dated 17th August, 2023
and restore R/Letters Patent Appeal
No.998/2023 to its original number to
the file of the High Court of Gujarat
at Ahmedabad. The restored Appeal shall
be listed before the roster Bench on
18th November, 2024. The parties, who
have appeared before this Court today,
shall be under an obligation to appear
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
before the Court on that date and no
further notice shall be served upon
them.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded
by the Registry of this Court to the
Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, who shall
ensure that the restored Appeal is
listed on 18th November, 2024, as
directed above, before the roster
Bench.
The restored Appeal shall be decided
afresh in accordance with law.
All contentions of the parties are left
open.
The Appeal is, accordingly, partly
allowed on the above terms."
4. The brief facts of the case are as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
4.1. The father of the Appellant was serving
as a Peon since 1981 with the respondent-
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited.
Unfortunately, the father of the appellant
expired on 14.12.2006.
4.2. The appellant-original petitioner
submitted an application on 2nd February, 2007
for compassionate appointment as per the
Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 before
the Gujarat Sub-ordinate Service Selection
Board (for short 'the Board') along with
necessary performa and consent letters of all
other family members and other requisite
details.
4.3. The application made by the appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
original petitioner was processed by calling
Income Certificate from Mamlatdar and other
details by the Board.
4.4. By order dated 27.10.2009, the
application for compassionate appointment was
rejected on the ground that there is no
financial hardship on account of the death of
the father of the appellant as death come
benefit of Rs.3,47,313/- was received in
addition to the family pension of Rs.2,655/-
with 50% Dearness Allowance and Medical
Allowance of Rs.100/- totaling to Rs.4,082/-
per month by the petitioner and his family
members.
4.5. It appears that the appellant made
another application for reconsideration of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
prayer for compassionate appointment in the
year 2010, which was also processed by the
respondents, however, no decision was taken
for reconsideration of the request of the
appellant.
4.6. The appellant thereafter, for almost six
to seven years, did not take any action and
representation was made only on 12.02.2017.
4.7. By letter dated 01.04.2017, the
respondent No.1 informed the respondent No.2
to give appropriate reply to the appellant
about the applicability of the Government
Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which in turn was
forwarded by the respondent No.2 to the
respondent No.3-Executive Engineer by letter
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
dated 02.06.2017. At this stage, the appellant
filed the Writ Petition before this Court
which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 06.07.2022 relying upon
the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Central Coalfields Limited through its
Chairman and Managing Director and Others
Versus Smt. Parden Oraon reported in AIR 2021
SC 1876 and in case of N.C.Santosh Versus
State of Karnataka and Others reported in
(2020) 7 SCC 617 as there was enormous delay
on the part of the appellant and it is not the
vested right of the appellant to get the
compassionate appointment, as the appellant
did not challenge the rejection order dated
27.10.2009 till 2018 in the Writ Petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh
appearing for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has challenged the order dated
27.10.2009 in the writ petition as the
application made by the appellant was never
decided after appellant approached the
respondents for reconsideration of the said
order in the year 2010.
5.2. It was submitted that the appellant
thereafter, has also made detailed
representation on 12.02.2017 which is also not
decided by the respondents and only
communication was made to give a reply in view
of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011,
which would not be applicable in the facts of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
the case as the father of the appellant has
expired in the year 2006.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh also
referred to and relied upon the decision of
the learned Single Judge dated 30th June, 2017
rendered in Special Civil Application No.10864
of 2015 in case of Prakashkumar Devjibhai
Parmar Versus State of Gujarat and Others
wherein, in similar facts, the learned Single
Judge directed the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment. It was submitted that while
allowing the Special Civil Application
No.10864 of 2015, the learned Single Judge
referred to and relied upon the decisions in
case of M.M.Kashyap Versus State of Gujarat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
reported in 2008 (1) GLH 373 as well in case
of Bhikhiben K. Baria Versus State of Gujarat
reported in 2009-TLGJ-0-2172 and decision in
case of Balvantbhai V. Chauhan Versus State of
Gujarat and Others dated 19.03.2009 rendered
in Special Civil Application No.701 of 2009,
wherein, it is held that the application for
compassionate appointment is required to be
considered as per the Policy prevailing at the
time of application and not as per the Policy
prevailing at the time when application is
decided. It was also held in the said decision
that Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000
was made applicable as the father of the
petitioner died on 01.12.2006 and it was held
that income criteria was not required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
taken into consideration while deciding the
application for compassionate appointment.
5.4. It was therefore submitted that as the
father of the appellant has also expired in
the year 2006, applying the same decisions,
the respondents are required to be directed to
consider the case of the appellant for
compassionate appointment as delay should not
come in the way of the appellant to get the
compassionate appointment.
6.1. On the other hand, learned advocate
Mr.Alkesh Shah appearing for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 referred to and relied upon the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) State of West Bengal Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
Debabrata Tiwari reported in 2023 (0)
AIJEL-SC 70642;
(ii) Canara Bank Versus Ajithkumar G.K.
rendered in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025;
(iii) Tinku Versus State of Haryana &
Others rendered in Civil Appeal No.8540
of 2024.
6.2. Referring to the above decisions, it was
submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above decisions, the appellant is
not entitled to compassionate appointment as a
vested right. It was pointed out that from
2010 to 2017, the appellant did not take any
action and as such, the claim of the appellant
for compassionate appointment has become a
stale claim and the very purpose of granting
compassionate appointment is frustrated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the facts
emerging from the record, it appears that it
is not in dispute that from 2010 to 2017, the
appellant-original petitioner did not take any
action to pursue the claim for the
compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of State of West Bengal Versus
Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has considered the
Policy for compassionate appointment as under:
"7. The majesty of death is that it is a
great leveller for, it makes no
distinction between the young and the
old or the rich and the poor. Death
being as a consequence of birth at some
point of time is inevitable for every
being. Thus, while death is certain,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
its timing is uncertain. Further, a
deceased employee does not always leave
behind valuable assets; he may at times
leave behind poverty to be faced by the
immediate members of his family.
Therefore, what should be done to
ensure that death of an individual does
not mean economic death for his family?
The States obligation in this regard,
confined to its employees who die in
harness, has given rise to schemes and
rules providing for compassionate
appointment of an eligible member of
his family as an instance of providing
immediate succor to such a family.
Support for such a provision has been
derived from the provisions of Part IV
of the Constitution of India, i.e.,
Article 39 of the Directive Principles
of State Policy."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
the decisions in cases of (i) Sushma Gosain
Versus Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC
468, (ii) Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of
Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, (iii)
Haryana State Electricity Board Versus Hakim
Singh reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, (iv) State
of Haryana Versus Ankur Gupta reported in AIR
2003 SC 3797, (v) Jagdish Prasad Versus State
of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301, (vi)
I.G.(Karmik) Versus Prahalad Mani Tripathi
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162, (vii) Mumtaz
Yunus Mulani Versus State of Maharashtra
reported in (2008) 11 SCC 384 and (viii) State
of Jammu and Kashmir Versus Sajad Ahmed Mir
reported in AIR 2006 SC 2743, laid down the
following principles :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
"7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the following
principles emerge:
i. That a provision for
compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general
provisions providing for appointment
to a post by following a particular
procedure of recruitment. Since such
a provision enables appointment
being made without following the
said procedure, it is in the nature
of an exception to the general
provisions and must be resorted to
only in order to achieve the stated
objectives, i.e., to enable the
family of the deceased to get over
the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate
grounds is not a source of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
recruitment. The reason for making
such a benevolent scheme by the
State or the public sector
undertaking is to see that the
dependents of the deceased are not
deprived of the means of livelihood.
It only enables the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden
financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is
not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future.
Compassionate employment cannot be
claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment
should be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress. It is
improper to keep such a case pending
for years.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
v. In determining as to whether the
family is in financial crisis, all
relevant aspects must be borne in
mind including the income of the
family, its liabilities, the
terminal benefits if any, received
by the family, the age, dependency
and marital status of its members,
together with the income from any
other source.
7.3. The object underlying a provision
for grant of compassionate employment
is to enable the family of the deceased
employee to tide over the sudden crisis
due to the death of the bread-earner
which has left the family in penury and
without any means of livelihood. Out of
pure humanitarian consideration and
having regard to the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be in a position
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
to make both ends meet, a provision is
made for giving gainful appointment to
one of the dependents of the deceased
who may be eligible for such
appointment. Having regard to such an
object, it would be of no avail to
grant compassionate appointment to the
dependents of the deceased employee,
after the crisis which arose on account
of death of a bread-winner, has been
overcome. Thus, there is also a
compelling need to act with a sense of
immediacy in matters concerning
compassionate appointment because on
failure to do so, the object of the
scheme of compassionate would be
frustrated. Where a long lapse of time
has occurred since the date of death of
the deceased employee, the sense of
immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and
thus lose its significance and this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
would be a relevant circumstance which
must weigh with the authorities in
determining as to whether a case for
the grant of compassionate appointment
has been made out for consideration.
7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non
for entertaining a claim for
compassionate appointment is that the
family of the deceased employee would
be unable to make two ends meet without
one of the dependents of the deceased
employee being employed on
compassionate grounds. The financial
condition of the family of the
deceased, at the time of the death of
the deceased, is the primary
consideration that ought to guide the
authority's decision in the matter."
9. With regard to the consideration of the
application after delay of several years,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed as under:
"7.5. Considering the second question
referred to above, in the first
instance, regarding whether applications
for compassionate appointment could be
considered after a delay of several
years, we are of the view that, in a
case where, for reasons of prolonged
delay, either on the part of the
applicant in claiming compassionate
appointment or the authorities in
deciding such claim, the sense of
immediacy is diluted and lost. Further,
the financial circumstances of the
family of the deceased, may have
changed, for the better, since the time
of the death of the government employee.
In such circumstances, Courts or other
relevant authorities are to be guided by
the fact that for such prolonged period
of delay, the family of the deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
able to sustain themselves, most
probably by availing gainful employment
from some other source. Granting
compassionate appointment in such a
case, as noted by this Court in Hakim
Singh would amount to treating a claim
for compassionate appointment as though
it were a matter of inheritance based on
a line of succession which is contrary
to the Constitution. Since compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and
the same is relative to the financial
condition and hardship faced by the
dependents of the deceased government
employee as a consequence of his death,
a claim for compassionate appointment
may not be entertained after lapse of a
considerable period of time since the
death of the government employee."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering
the decisions on laches and undue delay in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
case of (i) Lindsay Petroleum Co. Versus
Prosper Armstrong reported in (1874) 3 PC 221,
(ii) Moon Mills Ltd. Versus M.R.Meher,
President, Industrial Court, Bombay reported
in AIR 1967 SC 1450, (iii) State of M.P.
Versus Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4
SCC 566, (iv) Jagdish Lal Versus State of
Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 and (v)
State of Uttaranchal Versus Shiv Charan Singh
Bhandari reported in (2023) 12 SCC 179, held
as under :
"10. Applying the said ratio to the
facts of the present case, we hold that
the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon
submitting their applications in the
year 2006-2005 did nothing further to
pursue the matter, till the year 2015
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
i.e., for a period of ten years.
Notwithstanding the tardy approach of
the authorities of the Appellant-State
in dealing with their applications, the
Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed
approaching the High Court seeking a
writ in the nature of a mandamus
against the authorities of the State.
In fact, such a prolonged delay in
approaching the High Court, may even be
regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as
discernible by the conduct of the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Such a
delay would disentitle the Respondents-
Writ Petitioners to the discretionary
relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Further, the order of the
High Court dated 17th March, 2015,
whereby the writ petition filed by some
of the Respondents herein was disposed
of with a direction to the Director of
Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
to take a decision as to the
appointment of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners, cannot be considered to
have the effect of revival of the cause
of action."
11. Applying the above ratio to the facts of
the case, it appears that the appellant-writ
petitioner, upon submitting his application in
2010 for reconsideration of the decision dated
27.10.2009, did nothing further to pursue the
matter till submitting representation dated
12.02.2017 i.e. for a period of about six
years. Therefore, irrespective of the approach
of the respondents in not deciding the
application, the appellant delayed in
approaching this Court seeking a writ in the
nature of mandamus against the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
State Authorities. Therefore, such a prolonged
delay, occurred in approaching this Court,
would be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as
discernible by the conduct of the appellant
and such a delay would disentitle the
appellant to the discretionary relief under
Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. We are therefore of the opinion that
though the appellant may be entitled to the
compassionate appointment as the order dated
27.10.2009 is contrary to the Policy as per
the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000,
the appellant, having not taken any action for
almost six years from 2010 to 2017, would not
be entitled to the discretionary relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
mentioned decisions.
13. The Hon'ble the Apex Court, under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
where no time limit is prescribed, in case of
Prabhakar Versus Joint Director, Sericulture
Department and Another reported in (2015) 15
Supreme Court Cases 1, has also held that the
dispute still existing or live dispute or
which has not become a stale claim, depends
upon the facts of the case to be considered at
the time of granting the relief. In the facts
of the case, when the appellant-original
petitioner has remained inactive to pursue his
remedy, the discretion cannot be exercised in
favour of the appellant under Article 226 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
the Constitution of India and the learned
Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition on ground of delay and on the ground
that the appellant has no vested right to get
compassionate appointment.
14. We are therefore, of the opinion that no
interference is called for in the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Hence, the Appeal being devoid
of any merit is dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
PALAK
