Gujarat High Court

Somatbhai Bachubhai Sankhat vs General Manager, Western Railway on 25 November, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/2968/2017                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2968 of 2017


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                         Yes           No
                                                                                                ✓
                      ==========================================================
                                          SOMATBHAI BACHUBHAI SANKHAT
                                                      Versus
                                     GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - RAILWAY
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                             Date : 25/11/2025
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Danak appearing for the petitioner has tendered the affidavit-in-

rejoinder, which is taken on record.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the

respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of

respondents. With consent of the parties, the matter is

taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard Mr. Manoj Danak, learned advocate for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

petitioner and Mrs. Krishna Rawal, learned advocate for

the respondents - Railway, at length.

4. The present writ petition is filed by the present

petitioner under Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the

Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following

reliefs:

"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that being the legal heir of Bachubhai Visabhai Sankhat, the petitioner is entitled permanent to get employment with the Railways on compassionate ground.

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and grant employment in the grounds. Railways on compassionate

D. Pending admission and final hearing, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compensation for the period

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

he was pursuing his o grievances before the various authorities of Railways, since the petitioner is facing hand to mouth situation after his father's death.

E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s in the interest of justice."

5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would submit that the

claim of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment

due to the sad demise of his father on 30.10.1976 denied

by the respondent authority without any justifiable

reason, thereby violated fundamental right of the petitioner to get the compassionate appointment. It is

submitted that on attaining the majority, the petitioner

vide his application dated 01.11.1991 approached the

respondent authority to give him compassionate

appointment, but no action has been taken on such

application. It is further submitted that later on, some

correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner

and the respondent, whereby vide communication dated

25.06.2009, claim of compassionate appointment of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

petitioner was wrongly denied.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would respectfully

submit that, the reason of denying such benefit to the

petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner regularized

in service by the respondent authority, but same could

not have been the ground to deny compassionate

appointment to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the claim of

petitioner to secure compassionate appointment is an

independent claim than the regularization of service of

the mother upon the death of his father.

5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Danak would further submit

that as on today also, the petitioner is not gainfully employed anywhere and is awaiting justice from this

Court, whereby the respondent may be directed to

consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment. It is respectfully submitted that because the

mother of the petitioner got regularized in her service

and drawing pension, it would not be a ground to deny

the benefit of compassionate appointment to the

petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

5.4 Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr.

Danak would request this Court to allow the present

writ application.

6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:-

6.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mrs. Rawal, for the respondents - Railway would respectfully submit that the

present petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch

as, the death of the father of the petitioner occurred in

the year 1976 and the present petition is filed only in

the year 2017. It is respectfully submitted that the

petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in a

satisfactory manner and merely because there were

previous communications exchanged between the parties, it would not extend the time in any manner whatsoever,

more particularly, when the respondent authority has

already denied the claim of the petitioner way back on

25.06.2009 [Annexure-I].

6.2 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would further state

that after the said demise of the father of the petitioner,

the mother of the petitioner was appointed on a daily

basis as a daily wager within two years from the sad

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

demise and later on, regularized in her service purely on

compassionate ground in the year 1986. It is further

submitted that the last drawn salary of mother of

petitioner was Rs.10,430/- p.m. and after she retired, she

was drawing revised pension of Rs.13,800/- p.m. on

01.01.2016 and Rs. 17,550/ p.m. in the year 2024.

6.3 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would respectfully

submit that when any one member of the family of the

deceased employee is granted the benefit of

compassionate appointment, having appointed as a daily

wager and later on, confirmed in her service, other

family members, in the present case, the petitioner

herein, cannot ipso facto as a matter of right claim compassionate appointment.

6.4 Learned advocate Mrs. Rawal would further submit

that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case and from the time when the deceased employee

died in the year 1976 till date, without getting any

compassionate appointment, petitioner can survive and

also, the fact that petitioner is residing with his mother,

who already engaged in the service of the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

authority and getting pension, the petitioner is not

entitled to secure any relief as prayed in the present

petition.

6.5 Making the above submissions, learned advocate

Mrs. Rawal would request this Court to dismiss the

present writ petition.

6.6 To buttress his arguments, she has placed relied

upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

(a) Steel Authority of India Limited versus Gouri

Devi reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 68015 [relevant

citations are 2022 (17) SCC 531 : AIR 2022 SC 783].

(b) Tinku versus State of Haryana reported in

2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74253, more particularly,

paragraph-12 is relevant thereof.

7. No other and further submissions are being made

by any of learned advocates appearing for respective

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

parties.

ANALYSIS:-

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the rival

parties at length, and after considering the pleadings of

the respective parties and so also, the documents

annexed therewith, the fact which emerges from the

record that by way of this petition filed in the year

2017, petitioner is claiming the benefit of compassionate

appointment for the death of his father, which occurred

in the year 1976,; ex facie, such claim is suffered by

delay and laches and requires to be out rightly rejected

by this Court on this ground alone. Nonetheless, this Court vide its order dated 29.01.2024, issued notice for

final disposal on the basis of the submissions made by

learned advocate Mr. Danak for the petitioner to verify,

"whether none of the family members of the deceased

employee got compassionate appointment on sad demise of father of petitioner?".

9. After issuance of notice, the respondents having

appeared filed its reply wherein clearly stated, more

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

particularly, in paragraph-10 of the reply that on the sad

demise of the father of the petitioner in the year 1976,

his mother has been given appointment on the post of

Waterman within two years as a daily wager and later

on she was confirmed in regular pay-scale in the year

1986. Thus, this fact remained uncontroverted by the

petitioner, inasmuch as, no contrary evidence is coming

forth on the record, except bare denial of such fact.

10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reply coming forth

from the application, nothing would survive in the

matter.

11. Nevertheless, it is required to be noted here that the petitioner for the first time claimed compassionate

appointment in the year 1991 for the death of his father

which occurred in the year 1976. The reason of

approaching the authority with this much delayed was

that the petitioner was a minor in year 1976; and

having attained the age of majority in the year 1991,

the petitioner filed an application dated 01.12.1991

[Annexure-A Colly]. The respondents, vide its

communication dated 25.06.2009 rejected the claim of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

petitioner made by way of his application dated

19.06.2009; thereby, the petitioner was denied the benefit

of compassionate appointment. If it be so, there was no

reason for the petitioner to approach this Court by way

of this petition filed in the year 2017. It is an apparent

delay on the part of the petitioner and it further

appears that the petitioner remained silent and indolent

for more than a decade on getting the response as

aforesaid.

12. It is now well settled legal position of law that

getting compassionate appointment by family members of

a deceased employee who died in harness is not a

fundamental right, and granting compassionate appointment to any of the family members would be a

policy decision of the respondent authority and when

granted, other family members of deceased employee

cannot allow to claim similar benefit. It is further an

undeniable fact that the purpose of granting

compassionate appointment is to give immediate succor to

the family who lost their bread earner. When the

petitioner and his family members survived for all these

years after the death of his father in the year 1976,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2968/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

more particularly, his mother was engaged in regular

service of the respondent authority purely on

compassionate basis, according to my view, no case is

made out by petitioner to claim compassionate

appointment. [See - Steel Authority of India Limited

versus Gouri Devi reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 68015:

2022 (17) SCC 531: AIR 2022 SC 783]

13. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to pertinent

and relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Tinku (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has in paragraph-12 observed and held thus:

"12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed

as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a

condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of

selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of

the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of

a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging

urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them

helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore,

provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme

financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to

meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the

requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a

compassionate appointment."