[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mumtazbibi Alamkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3264 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MUMTAZBIBI ALAMKHAN PATHAN & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIG MANSURI(444) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Learned advocate Mr. M.I.G. Mansuri appearing for
the petitioners and Learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala for the
respondent - State at length.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief.
"A. Admit and allow this petition,
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the rejection order at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Annexure-G to this petition qua the petitioner
no.2 which reflect the illegal and arbitrary action
on the part of the concerned authorities in not
considering the case of the petitioners for giving
him appointment on compassionate ground and
be pleased to hold that the petitioner no. 2 is
entitled to get an appointment on compassionate
ground as per the policy which was prevalent at
the relevant point of time when the application
was made by the petitioners and/or to pay a lump
sum amount of compensation to the petitioners if
they are so entitled to it;
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the concerned respondent authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for giving
him an appointment on compassionate ground as
per the policy which was prevalent at the relevant
point of time when the application was made by
the petitioners and/or to pay a lump sum amount
of compensation to the petitioners if they are so
entitled to it;
D. Pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition, be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
concerned respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner no.2 for giving him
appointment on compassionate ground as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
policy which was prevalent at the relevant point
of time when the application was made by the
petitioners and/or to pay a lump sum amount of
compensation to the petitioners if they are so
entitled to it in the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case;
E. To call for the relevant records and
proceedings of the present case and examine
them,
F. Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest
of justice."
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would state that husband
and father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively died in
harness during the course of his employment with respondent on
27.09.2004 and at that time, petitioner No.2 being minor, an
application came to be made by his mother - petitioner No.1 to
get compassionate appointment. It is further stated by the
learned advocate Mr. Mansuri that vide letter dated 21.02.2005,
the respondent - Authority advised petitioners to approach again
when petitioner No.2 attained the majority. When petitioner
No.2 attained the majority, an application came to be made by
them before the respondent - Authority in the year 02.08.2009,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
which came to be rejected by respondent - Authority vide its
impugned communication dated 02.12.2009 on the ground that
the application is beyond limitation period so prescribed as per
Government G.R. dated 10.03.2000.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would respectfully submit
that as per the Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. of State, whereby
compassionate appointment can be granted to dependent family
member, it has been specifically stated that on attaining the
majority by dependent family member, he/she can apply to get
compassionate appointment thereby, petitioners approached the
respondent - Authority in the year 02.08.2009 as petitioner No.2
became the major on 04.02.2009, thereafter, they have
immediately approached the respondent - Authority who ought
to have considered the application and ought to have granted
the compassionate appointment to petitioner No.2.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri would respectfully submit
that ground on which the claim of the petitioners rejected by
respondent - Authority, that is delay in approaching Authority to
get the compassionate appointment, is not sustainable, inasmuch
as, at the relevant point of time, petitioner No.1 approached
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
respondent - Authority in time who advised her to approach
again when the petitioner No.2 - son got major. It is respectfully
submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri that when
petitioners have approached respondent - Authority in the year
2009 and petitioner No.2 holding requisite qualification to secure
compassionate appointment, such right could not have been
denied by respondent - Authority on technical grounds of delay.
Making above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mansuri
requests to allow the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala has taken me
through the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent whereby would
contend that petitioners' claim as made in the year 2009 is
hopelessly time-barred and would not fall within any of the
parameters so set out in G.R. dated 10.03.2000. It is respectfully
submitted learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala that when husband and
father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively died in the year
2004, at the given point of time, either petitioner No.1 or any
other elder dependent family member of deceased employee
could have requested to get compassionate appointment, but at
that point of time, petitioners have thought it fit not to claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
such benefits claim of compassionate appointment, rather
waited till petitioner No.2 became major. So, in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to
claim any relief as per aforesaid G.R. dated 10.03.2000.
4.1 Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala further respectfully submits
that petitioner is misconceived in his notion by reading Clause
8(b) of said G.R. dated 10.03.2000 whereby wrongly believed that
until the petitioner No.2 became major, there was no need to file
an application by any other adult dependent family member
including petitioner No.1. It is submitted by learned AGP Ms.
Sukhadwala that reading entire Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R.
dated 10.03.2000 would indicate that to give immediate financial
help to family member of deceased employee, there was no
requirement whereby minor member had to wait till he attained
the majority, inasmuch as, either widow, widow over or any adult
dependent family member can apply for compassionate
appointment and they have to accept it. Learned AGP Ms.
Sukhadwala relied upon the judgment passed by this Court on
08.07.2025 in Special Civil Application No.10270 of 2018. So
making the above submissions, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
would request to this Court that this petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and after going through their respective pleadings and
documents submitted in support of that, it is clear that at given
point of time and for husband and father of the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 respectively died in the year 2004, either petitioner No.1
being his widow or adult family member, i.e., youngest
daughter/sister of petitioners respectively, could have claimed
for compassionate appointment which unfortunately not done so
by them. As per Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid G.R. dated
10.03.2000 would indicate that to give immediate financial
help/need to dependent family member of deceased employee
who lost their bread earner, the scheme of compassionate
appointment floated by State. As such, there was no need to wait
for any adult member of dependent family of deceased
employee till one minor member attained majority to claim for
compassionate appointment. The submissions so made by
learned advocate Mr. Mansuri contrary to aforesaid is not
sustainable as bare reading of Clause 8(b) of aforesaid G.R. dated
10.03.2000 would clearly prescribe that within six months from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
sad demise of deceased employee, any dependent adult family
member of deceased employee requires to claim for
compassionate appointment and as per their qualification,
respondent - Authority shall have to consider such claim on its
own merit.
5.1 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to pertinent
observation so made by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Hardevbhai Baldevbhai Desai V/s. State of Gujarat
passed in Special Civil Application No.10270 of 2018 dated
08.07.2025, wherein it has been observed as under:
"5.5 Under the circumstances, it clearly comes out from the
record that the petitioner's father has expired on 17.05.2009,
the petitioner has made an application on 20.07.2009, which,
in fact, within stipulated time, but, since the petitioner was a
minor at the relevant point of time, the respondent authority
has rejected the said application on that ground as per the
Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. Further, on
attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has made an
application to the respondent authorities on 01.05.2010, it
was rejected by the respondent authorities in view of the
Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 that the any major
dependent has to make an application within a period of six
months after the sad demise of the employee and if the
concerned dependent, is minor at the time of death of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
employee and the major dependent i.e. wife of the deceased
employee did not make any application for getting
compassionate appointment, then the authority should not
wait for attaining the majority of that minor dependent.
Therefore, the authority has rightly rejected the application
of the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the mother of
the petitioner has never made an application for getting
compassionate appointment for the results best known to
her. Further, the mother of the petitioner has made an
application for getting lump sum compensation in lieu of
appointment, which is also required to be rejected in view of
the subsequent Government Resolution that once the
application has been rejected earlier by the authorities. The
concerned person cannot apply again for the lump-sum
compensation.
6. We cannot overlook the object of the scheme. The object of
the compassionate appointment scheme is to give relief in
financial stringency and to assist the family to cope with
unexpected critical situation by giving compassionate
appointment to one member of the dependent family of the
employee who died during service leaving the family in
helpless condition without any means of livelihood. In the
present case, indisputably, the petitioner has made an
application after the prescribed time limit of six months from
the sad demise of his father, as the petitioner was minor at
the relevant point of time and the widow has not made any
application for getting said benefit. Therefore, the present
petition needs to be dismissed.
7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank versus
Ajithkumar G.K. reported 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74716, more
particularly paras : 24 to 28 thereof, which read as under :
"24. We have noticed the core issue arising for decision as
well as the guiding legal principles for appointment on
compassionate ground hereinabove. As observed earlier,
decision on the core issue would also require us to answer
certain sub- issues. We propose to answer them too in the
process.
25. The first sub-issue is in relation to the lapse of time since
the respondent's father passed away. It has been in excess
of two decades. It does not require anyone to put on a
magnifying glass here to assess the time that has been
taken for the application of the respondent for
compassionate appointment to be finally decided. The
parties have reached the third tier in the second round. One
of the foremost factors for appointment on compassionate
ground is that the same should be offered at the earliest.
Unless appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate
hardship arises, tiding over the immediate financial crisis
owing to (i) sudden premature and untimely death of the
deceased employee or (ii) medical incapacitation resulting in
the employee's unfitness to continue in service, - for which
benevolence is shown by offering an appointment - may not
exist and thereby the very object of such appointment could
stand frustrated.
26. More often than not, spurned claims for compassionate
appointment reach the high courts or even this Court after
consuming substantial time. The ordinary rule of litigation is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
that right to relief should be decided by reference to the
date on which the suitor entered the portals of the court.
The relief that the suitor is entitled in law could still be
denied in equity on account of subsequent and intervening
events, i.e., events between the date of commencement of
the litigation and the date of the decision; however, law is
well-settled that such relief may not be denied solely on
account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or
quasi-judicial forum for no fault of the suitor [see : Beg Raj
Singh vs. State of U.P. [50] ]. It would, therefore, not be
prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time
taken by the court(s) to decide the issue before it.
27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for
denying compassionate appointment where the claim is
lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in
cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need
of financial assistance. However, what would be a
reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme
for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any
time limit has been prescribed for making an
application and the claimant applies within such period,
lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection.
28. The death of the respondent's father, in this case,
occurred in December 2001. Now, we are in 2025. The
respondent cannot be blamed for the delay, since he was
diligently pursuing his claim before the appellant and
thereafter before the High Court. Thus, irrespective of how
old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a
consideration of the same on merits.
Emphasis supplied
5.2 Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case and as per the plain reading of Clause 8(b) of the aforesaid
G.R. dated 10.03.2000, no case is made out by the petitioners to
claim compassionate appointment.
5.3 Before parting, I would like to further observe that death of
employee in the present case took place in the year 2004,
whereas claim made by petitioner No.2 having attained the
majority in the year 2009 and after rejecting such claim in the
year 2009 itself, petitioner appears to approach this Court by way
of this petition in the year 2013. All these aspects would be taken
note out by this Court, this would be an additional ground to
reject the claim of the petitioner to get compassionate
appointment, inasmuch as, petitioners could survive themselves
for this many years without any financial help received from
respondent - State. There is no need to consider such claim of
petitioners. (See : Steel Authority of India Limited V/s. Gouri
Devi, reported in (2022) 17 SCC531.)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3264/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
6. In view of above foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits
in the present petition, which requires to be dismissed, which is
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
