Gujarat High Court
Kantaben Mafatlal Magarwadia vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5078 of 2018
==========================================================
KANTABEN MAFATLAL MAGARWADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner
seeking following main prayers.
"8(B) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ, order and/or
direction in the nature of mandamus to direct
the respondent authorities to consider the
application of the petitioner dated 26.05.2005
for compassionate appointment in the interest
of justice.
Or
(C) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ, order and/or
direction in the nature of mandamus
quashing and setting aside the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the
respondent no.3 annexed at Anneuxre-A to
this petition and please to direct the
respondent authorities to reconsider the
application dated 24.06.2016 for lump-sum
compensation in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Rushabh R. Shah for the
petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities ought
to have considered the application for compassionate
appointment as per new policy dated 05.07.2011 and ought to
have granted lump-sum compensation. He has further
submitted that it is expected that the respondent authorities
should act objectively n the large interest of justice and in
the manner that the public right and interest may be
safeguarded / protected and may not be adversely affected at
the instance of the act of the State instrumentality. He has
also submitted that the respondents have acted in the mode
and manner which amounts to unbecoming of the State
instrumentality. He has submitted that this petition may be
allowed.
4.1 Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Henil M. Shah for
the respondent - State authorities has vehemently opposed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the affidavit in reply of the authorities and has
submitted that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been denied by the respondent authorities
earlier and therefore, once the claim for compassionate
appointment is rejected, the dependent cannot claim for any
lump-sum compensation as per the circular.
4.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh versus Ashish Awasthi and in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh versus Baalendu Yadav reported in
(2022) 2 SCC 157 and has submitted that the claim for
compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis
of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of he
employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into.
4.3 He has submitted that this petition may be
dismissed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record. The facts of the
case are as under.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
5.1 The husband of the petitioner - Late Mafatlal
Karshanbhai Magarwadia was working as a Police Constable
(Unarmed) at Banaskantha District. After serving for about
14 years, he has expired on 09.01.1995 leaving behind an
illiterate widow, four minor children, amongst them, the
eldest one is a daughter.
5.2 The petitioner had made an application to the
respondent authorities on 10.02.1995 and requested that as
and when her elder son becomes major, the application for
compassionate appointment will be made and the same be
considered by the respondent authorities.
5.3 On 26.05.2005, an application for compassionate
appointment was made by the eldest son of the petitioner i.e.
Gautamkumar Mafatlal Magarwadia, on attaining the age of
majority. The same was rejected by the Government on
07.09.2006 on the ground that as per the relevant policy, the
eldest daughter of the petitioner has not made the said
application within a period of two years from the death of
her father. The same was informed to the petitioner by the
respondent authorities.
5.4 Being aggrieved, he has preferred Special Civil
Application No.5635 of 2007 before this Court, wherein, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide order dated
02.03.2007, directed the respondent authorities to re-consider
their decision dated 07.09.2006, because the eldest daughter
of the petitioner got married at the age of 18 and therefore,
the case of the eldest son is to be considered on merits.
5.5 Pursuant to the said order, the son of the
petitioner has made a representation to the respondent
authorities for compassionate appointment. The respondent
authorities have, vide order dated 18.06.2007, rejected the
same by a detailed order.
5.6 That son has again filed Special Civil Application
No.5094 of 2011 before this Court, wherein the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has, vide order dated 07.07.2011, directed
the petitioner to supply more details to the respondent
authorities and in turn, the respondent authorities are
directed to re-examined the same and decide the case of the
petitioner. The same is rejected by the authorities by a
detailed order on 13.12.2011.
5.7 The petitioner has made an application for getting
lump-sum compensation before the respondent authorities on
24.06.2016, which is rejected by the respondent authorities in
view of the Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
6.1 From the above, this Court finds that this is a
third round of litigation.
6.2 The petitioner / son of the petitioner has
approached this Court as well as the concerned authorities
for getting compassionate appointment time and again.
6.3 The concerned authorities have rejected the same
on the ground of delay, as per the policy in existence and
informed the petitioner / son of the petitioner accordingly.
6.4 The petitioner / son of the petitioner has
approached this Court earlier twice and the Coordinate Bench
of this Court has directed the respondent authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner / son of the petitioner, in
accordance with law / policy, on both occasions, which has
been decided by the respondent authorities by reasoned orders
twice, as per the policy in existence.
6.5 The husband of the petitioner has expired on
09.01.1995. The first application was by the son of the
deceased employee on 26.05.2005. Therefore, the authorities
have rejected the same on the ground of delay. At the time
of sad demise, the petitioner might be applied for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
compassionate appointment, which was not made for the
reasons best known to them.
6.6 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish
Awasthi & Baalendu Yadav (supra), more particularly, Para :
4.1 thereof, which reads as under.
"4.1 In the case of Indian Bank and
Others versus Promila and Another, (2020) 2
SC 729, it is observed and held that claim
for compassionate appointment must be
decided only on the basis of relevant scheme
prevalent on date of demise of the employee
and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into.
Similar view has been taken by this Court in
the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others versus Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC
496. It is required to be noted that in he
case of Amit Shrivas (supra), the very scheme
applicable in the present case was under
consideration and it was held that the
scheme prevalent on the date of death of the
deceased employee is only to be considered.
In that view of the matter, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be
quashed and set aside."
6.7 We cannot overlook the object of the scheme at
this stage. 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.
6.8 At this stage, it would also be fruitful to refer to
the decision of 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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
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 that right
to relief should be decided by reference to the
date on which the suitor entered the portals of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5078/2018 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
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
determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a
consideration of the same on merits."
7. In view of above and under the circumstances, the
present petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed
accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
