Gujarat High Court
Lalsinh Magansinh Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1448 of 2017
==========================================================
LALSINH MAGANSINH SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SAFI H PATHAN(8805) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petition relates to claim by the petitioner for being
appointed on compassionate ground which has been refused by
the respondent.
2. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, while in
service, passed away on 30.05.2002. Immediately on his death,
the petitioner, who was minor at that point of time, made an
application requesting for being appointed on compassionate
ground. However, the respondents refused this claim on the
ground that the petitioner was a minor, however, proactively
taking note of the fact that the petitioner had an elder sister
who was eligible, the respondents offered the petitioner's elder
sister an appointment on compassionate ground. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
petitioner's sister, however, did not avail of this offer and as a
consequence the offer made by the respondents to appoint a
dependent of its deceased employee went unutilized. This
refusal and counter offer made by the respondents was in the
year 2003 i.e. immediately after the death of petitioner's father.
The petitioner thereafter, in the year 2007, has renewed his
request to the respondents for being appointed on
compassionate ground. This was not considered according to
the petitioner which led him to make one more representation in
the year 2015, however, in this claim made in the year 2015,
the petitioner requested for payment of lump-sum compensation
in accordance with the Government Resolution dated
05.07.2011.
3. The respondents have refused this claim on the ground that the
petitioner's sister had been offered an appointment in the year
2002 and since the same was not availed of, the petitioner could
not seek for lump-sum compensation. Being aggrieved by this
refusal, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
4. In my view, the refusal on the part of respondents to offer lump-
sum compensation or compassionate appointment to the
petitioner cannot be found fault with. It is not in dispute that
the petitioner, though being minor, made a claim for being
appointed on compassionate grounds and was informed
immediately that he would not be entitled for being considered
as he was a minor. It is also forthcoming and it is admitted that
the respondents did offer the petitioner's elder sister an
appointment but this offer was not accepted by petitioner's elder
sister. The consequence of this particular refusal on the part of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
the petitioner's sister is that the policy which was inforce as on
the date of the petitioner's father death was implemented and
offered to the petitioner's family but the same was refused. Once
an offer of compassionate appointment is made and refused
under the then existing policy, the dependent cannot thereafter
make a fresh claim and that too in respect of a new policy which
has come up subsequently.
5. In instant case, the lump-sum compensation in lieu of
compassionate appointments was substituted by the
Government in the year 2011 i.e. 9 years after the death of the
petitioner's father. The petitioner cannot obviously take
advantage of this particular benefit, more so, when the
petitioner's family was in fact offered a compassionate
appointment immediately on the death of the petitioner's father.
Consequently there is no merit in this writ petition.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner however, sought to place
reliance on the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this
Court in SCA No. 11793/2014, (disposed of on 21.02.2015) to
contend in that case also this Court had directed payment of
lump-sum compensation in respect of a minor claimant who
was only two years as on the date of death of the employee. He
also submitted that the accident therein also related to the
period of 1980. In my view, this judgment could be of no avail of
the petitioner as in that particular case, that Court was not
considering a case where an offer of appointment had been
made to the dependent of an employee. In fact in that case, the
employee, his wife and his daughter were killed in the road
accident leaving behind only a minor two year old son as on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1448/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
date of the accident. Considering those facts, this Court has
held that the minor on attaining age of the majority was entitled
for payment of lump-sum compensation. The factual situation
being entirely different in this case, the judgment would be of no
avail and consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(NSSG,J)
Mehul Desai
