Gujarat High Court
Kasam Gulamhushen Jangiya vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 180 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
KASAM GULAMHUSHEN JANGIYA & ANR.
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVI K DESAI(8459) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR AAYUSH BHANDARI, ADVOCATE FOR
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.
Aayush Bhandari for learned advocate Ms. Dharmisht Raval
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up
for hearing.
3. The present writ application is filed under Article 14, 16
& 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
"(A) direct the respondent authorities to grant lump-sum
compensation to petitioners as per their entitlement in view of policy as
contained in Government Resolution dated 20.2.2006 and circular
dated 5.4.2006 and also in view of process undertaken afresh by the
authorities vide letter dated 12.09.2016 and 30.09.2016, and
(B) award the cost of the petition, and
(C) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities
to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in view of
Government Resolution dated 20.02.2006 and circular dated 5.4.2006,
and/or
(D) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the
Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that despite
there is a clear cut policy of State of Gujarat adopted by the
Gujarat Maritime Board (herein after referred to as 'Board')
in regards to grant compensation to the family of an
employee of respondents - Board died during course of his
service, on complete mis-interpretation and total non-
application of mind, such benefit i.e. compensation, denied
to the petitioners.
5. It is not in dispute that predecessor of the petitioners
herein working with the respondents- Board as 'Khalasi' died
on 23.11.2008. As per the policy of State dated 20.02.2006
adopted by the respondents- Board vide its Resolution dated
05.04.2006, the petitioners herein have submitted an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
application dated 12.08.2009 before the Board seeking
compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. Such
application appears to have been rejected by the Board vide
its letter dated 07.12.2009 on the ground that none of the
legal heirs/ beneficiary of deceased employee having
requisite qualification as required to get such benefit as
widow not literate one, they are not entitle to receive any
benefit.
6. The petitioner No.1 appears to have cleared 10 th Board
Examination in the year 2013, applied before the Board to
grant such compensation. Such request was also rejected by
the respondents- Board on 2/5.4.2016. The case of the
petitioners denied on the ground that as earlier their
request was rejected, it cannot be reviewed again for any
reason.
7. Thereafter, again the petitioners appear to have
approached the Board with a request to grant such benefit
and vide its letter / internal communication dated
12.09.2016/ 30.09.2016 and 02.01.2017, the case of the
petitioners appears to have been taken note by the
concerned officials of respondents-Board. Nevertheless, fact
remain that till date, petitioners have not been paid any
compensation as per the aforesaid Government Resolution
adopted by the respondents-Board, and or denied it after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
aforesaid communications on record. Hence, the present writ
petition.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Dhruvi K. Desai for the
petitioners would respectfully submit that it is a specific case
of the petitioners from inception that as per Government
Resolution dated 20.02.2006 adopted by the Board on
05.04.2006, petitioners sought only compensation and not
compassionate appointment, which wrongly denied to them.
It is submitted that as per the aforesaid Resolutions,
petitioners are entitle to receive Rs. 5 lakhs as financial help,
having lost father / husband of petitioners respectively,
undisputedly died during his service with respondent board.
8.1 Learned advocate Ms. Desai would further submit that
as per the aforesaid Resolution, service of deceased
employee was left more than 10 years at the time of his
death, thereby, petitioners are entitle to receive the
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. She would further submit that
while considering the application of petitioners,
respondents-Board only required to see as to whether
deceased was working in its organization or not and how
many years of service left to be served by him when died. It is
submitted that as per the application form / format of
application prepared by the Board, which was submitted
with signature of petitioner No.1 on 12.08.2009 (page -24 &
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
25), there is no column prepared by respondents- Board in
regards to any educational qualification of beneficiary of
such compensation.
8.2 Learned advocate Ms. Desai would respectfully submit
that when there is no requirement to have any educational
qualification to receive compensation as per the aforesaid
Resolutions, the decision taken by the respondents- Board
denying such legitimate right of petitioners to receive such
compensation is nothing but an arbitrary decision of
respondents and its also violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of
the Constitution of India.
8.3 Learned advocate Ms. Desai would further respectfully
submit that due to illiteracy and having no sufficient means,
the petitioners could not knock the door of this Court at
relevant point of time but when respondents- Board failed to
perform its statutory obligation, having not paid
compassionate amount to the petitioners as prayed for, such
an arbitrary, capricious and illegal action cannot be
countenanced on mere delay in approaching this Court. It is
further submitted that lastly when case of the petitioners
having taken note by the competent officials of Board in the
year 2017 having forwarded the case of the petitioners by
the Board's Officer to the Manager (H.R.), Gujarat Maritime
Board, Gandhinanagar, it was incumbent upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
respondents- Board to take appropriate decision in light of
the aforesaid Resolutions.
8.4 Lastly, learned advocate Ms. Desai would respectfully
submit that when action of respondents - Board is ex-facie
arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of
India, thus, this Court should exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
8.5 To buttress her argument, learned advocate Ms. Desai
would refer and rely upon the decision dated 11.03.2016 of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil
Application No. 12093 of 2015, in a case of
Hamidaben Jahirudinbhai Kazi Wd/o Jahirudinbhai
Kazi V/s Gujarat Maritime Board & Ors.
8.6 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Ms.
Desai would request this Court to accept the prayers made
by the petitioners and appropriate writ may be issued
against respondents.
9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aayush Bhandari for
learned advocate Ms. Dharmisht Raval for the respondents-
Board would vehemently object the present writ application
solely on the ground of delay/laches that the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
wake up from slumber, having filed writ petition after about
11 years from first denial of compensation i.e. 07.12.2009. It
is submitted that as per settle legal position of law, when
the petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court after
long lapse of time, this Court should not exercise its
discretionary power in favour of such indolent petitioners.
9.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bhandari would further submit
that as such there is no error in the decision taken by the
respondents- Board, inasmuch as, undisputedly as on date of
applying for financial benefits - compensation for death of
employee by the petitioners, none of the petitioners were
having requisite educational qualification to receive such
benefit. It is respectfully submitted that as per circular dated
19.10.2007 issued by the respondents - Board to its all
offices, would clearly suggests that in a case of getting
compassionate appointment and or compensation in lieu
thereof, the applicants need to possess educational
qualification set out as per rules of State.
9.2 Learned advocate Mr. Bhandari would further submit
that when case of the petitioners have already been rejected
in the year 2009 and so also in the year 2016, there was no
right accrued/available in favour of the petitioners to
question such orders after lapse of more than 11 years as the
case may be. So, according to the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
respondents, this Court should dismiss the present writ
petition only on the ground of delay/latches and also not
possessing requisite qualification by petitioners to receive
any financial benefit - compensation as prayed for.
10. No other and further submissions have been made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties.
11. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at
length.
12. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in
dispute. As per the case of the petitioners, they lost father /
husband respectively on 23.11.2008, who happens to be
'Khalasi' working with the respondents - Board. As per,
Government Resolution dated 20.02.2006 adopted by Board
on 05.04.2006, in a case of death of its employee during
course of service, his dependents would entitle to receive
financial benefits in form of compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs and
5 lakhs as the case may be.
13. The bare reading of the aforesaid Government
Resolutions and its adoption by respondent-Board would
show nowhere, to get such financial relief - compensation by
the dependents of deceased employee concerned, they need
to possess any requisite educational qualification. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
preamble of aforesaid Government Resolution dated
20.02.2006 would clearly indicate that in lieu of
compassionate appointment to give financial relief in favour
of dependents of employee concerned, who died during
course of employment, the amount of compensation will be
offered to them.
14. At this stage, it is apt to refer the cited decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed against respondent
board in somewhat similar set of facts, in a case of
Hamidaben Jahirudinbhai Kazi (supra) (Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, his Lordship then was)
more particularly Para 11, 12 & 13, wherein held thus:-
"11. It is not in dispute that at the time of demise of the husband of
the petitioner in 2009, there was a scheme framed by the Board of
2006 which was in force. The said scheme does not speak of any
particular educational qualification for the purpose of compassionate
appointment. I am unable to appreciate the argument canvassed on
behalf of the Board that as the petitioner or her son were not found to
be otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment, they could not
have been granted any lumpsum amount by way of compensation. To
put it in other words, I am unable to appreciate the argument that the
payment of lumpsum amount by way of compensation is dependent on
the eligibility of a person to seek actual appointment.
12 When it comes to providing compassionate appointment, the
employer has a right to consider whether the person will be able to
work or not on a particular post having regard to his qualification. It is
also open for the employer to frame an appropriate scheme in that
regard. Providing of the lumpsum compensation has nothing to do with
testing or determining the ability of the person to work on a particular
post. There lies the fine distinction. If it is the case of the Board that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
possessing a particular qualification is required even for providing of
lumpsum amount by way of compensation, then probably, such policy
would not pass the test of reasonableness and could be termed as
arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any scheme
of compassionate appointment as may be framed by an employer
being a beneficial scheme having a definite social object, must be
interpreted in a manner consistent with the object that is sought to be
achieved.
13 As observed by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra) that
assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee
under the Family Benefit Scheme cannot, in any way, be equated with
the benefit of compassionate appointments. In the case in hand also,
the benefit of providing lumpsum amount should not have been
equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. The providing
of lumpsum amount would provide some solace to the mental agony of
the grief-stricken family."
(emphasis supplied)
15. As such, the issue germen would squarely covered by
aforesaid decision, in fact binds the respondent-Board being
party to it. Nevertheless, even bare look of the application
submitted by the petitioners on 12.08.2009 appears to have
been preprinted by the respondents-Board referring its
Resolution dated 05.04.2006 in it, wherein also, no column
prescribed to disclose any educational qualification of
dependents concerned. When the application prepared by
respondents- Board submitted by the dependents-
petitioners concerned, and as such, the aforesaid
Resolutions would not remotely suggest that such
dependents need to possess basic qualifications to receive
any financial relief from the respondents- Board, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
decision taken by the respondents- Board denying such relief
in favour of the dependents/ petitioners herein is ex-facie
arbitrary, erroneous, perverse and suffers from total non-
application of mind.
16. So far as circular dated 19.10.2007 issued by
respondent-Board to all its offices is concern, same is also
referred aforesaid Resolution dated 05.04.2006 and only
instructed that before sending proposal in regards to
compassionate appointment, all parameters as per
government resolution/policy need to be checked and
advised its offices not to send proposal like sending post.
Nowhere, it refers about any educational qualification
requires to be possessed by beneficiary of aforesaid
Resolution. Learned advocate Mr. Bhandari unable to point
out such aspect when read said circular. Thus, according to
my view, respondents just to overcome its apparent error
while taking impugned decision, misdirected the Court to
drive into wrong direction. This Court with all its command
neither approves nor like to drive into wrong direction,
rather deprecate such attempt of respondents.
17. To deal with another limb of arguments in regards to
delay in filing present writ petition, I would like to observe
thus;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
17.1 It is true that at relevant point of time when the
petitioners denied the benefit by respondents- Board i.e.
07.12.2009, they could have straightway approach this Court
by filing writ application which now filed. At the same time,
this Court is not oblivious from the subsequent development
and exchanged of letters between the parties, whereby, it
can be culled out that petitioners having badly in need of
money, in absence of any financial support, illiteracy and like
reasons, not think it fit to approach this Court at relevant
point of time. At the same time, petitioners appear to have
actively engaged themselves with respondents- Board from
time to time till 2017 which is discernible from the
contemporaneous documents submitted by the petitioners
along with this writ petition which are not disputed by the
respondents- Board. So, it can be safely said that petitioners
till filing present writ petition, very well pursuing their right
to get compensation albeit, with respondents.
17.2 This Court cannot oblivious of the fact that the
petitioners having lost their bread earner may not in a
position to approach this Court at relevant point of time due
to the aforesaid reasons including lack of knowledge of their
fundamental right due to illiteracy. The petitioners instead
again approached respondents, have requested the mighty
respondents-Board to reconsider their request which
appears to have been take note by concern official, as can be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
seen from aforesaid last communication dated 02.01.2017 by
the officer of the Board to its Manager (H.R.), Gujarat
Maritime Board, Gandhinagar, made available on record
(page- 54). So, in view of above, there is a reason to believe
that petitioners were bonafide pursuing their claim before
respondents and waited in a hope to get favourable decision
from respondents.
18. True, ordinarily when petitioner approaches this Court
by significant delay and his action suffers from laches, this
Court well within its discretion to deny the benefit to the
petitioner having approached be lately. Nonetheless, it is not
an absolute proposition of law that every writ petition filed
with delay/laches needs to be dismissed. There is no
universal application of law in this regards. This Court in
appropriate cases may exercise its discretion in favour of
writ petitioner by issuing appropriate Writ, when found
decision/action of respondent statutory authority per se
illegal, arbitrary, in violation of fundamental right of citizen,
especially when none would be affected - prejudiced by such
invocation of power except violator i.e. respondent-State.
19. In the present case, when this Court found the decision
of respondents- Board per se in violation of its own
Resolution thereby, denied legitimate benefit to the needy
person like the dependents of its employee i.e. petitioners,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
this Court cannot shut its eyes towards such illegality to
perpetuate thereby, deny such legitimate benefit if available
to the petitioners on mere technicality of delay/laches.
20. Having so observed hereinabove, that when the
decision of respondents- Board denying benefit in favour of
petitioners ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article
14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot and
should not accept the submissions made by the learned
advocate Mr. Bhandari for the respondent-Board that this
writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of
delay/latches.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it cannot be accepted
that petitioners have slept over their right and wake up from
slumber when approach this Court in the year 2020 by way of
this writ petition, to claim benefit which denied in year 2009.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, according to my view, the petitioners are wrongly
denying benefit of Resolution dated 20.02.2006 of State
which is adopted by the respondents- Board on 05.04.2006
whereby, not given compensation as per such Resolution.
23. Having so observed and in view of foregoing reasons,
the decision of respondents- Board denying such benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
petitioners vide its communications dated 07.12.2009, dated
22.12.2012, and 02/05.04.2016 are hereby quashed and set
aside.
24. Consequently, respondents-Board is hereby directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioners pursuance to their
application dated 12.08.2009 (Annexure-D) afresh. The
respondents while taking final decision must keep in mind
what is discussed herein above.
25. Let aforesaid process and payment be completed by
respondents not later than 15th December, 2025 and grant
appropriate benefit in favour of the petitioners as per
Resolution dated 20.02.2006/05.04.2006 considering left out
service of deceased employee i.e. predecessor of petitioners,
when died, albeit without insisting/considering the
educational qualification of petitioners herein. The
compensation amount be paid to widow of deceased
employee i.e. petitioner No.2 herein, on proper verification.
26. Before parting, this Court would like to observe and
state that it could have imposed heavy cost upon the
respondents-Board of not granting legitimate financial
benefits to the poor petitioners herein, as prima-facie, there
is total non-application of mind while denying benefit to
petitioners. At the same time, at this stage, such order is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/180/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
passed, keeping in mind and with a hope that respondent-
Board officials regret their mistake by reconsider the case of
the petitioners objectively without any bias-prejudice, as per
letter and spirit of its own aforesaid Resolution. Accordingly,
it must pay the compensation to them in time.
27. Nonetheless, if such compensation / payment not being
paid by the respondents- Board within stipulated time to
petitioner No.2 as aforesaid, apart from initiating contempt
proceeding against erring officials of respondent-Board, she
is entitle to receive simple interest @ 9% per annum on such
compassionate amount from 15.12.2025 till its realization.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, observations, and
reasons, the present writ petition is hereby allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Accordingly, Rule made absolute. At
present, no order as to cost.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
