Kusumben Pravinbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 8300 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Kusumben Pravinbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/18532/2015                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18532 of 2015

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT                                       Sd/-

                       =====================================================
                                    Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                             ✓
                       =====================================================
                                     KUSUMBEN PRAVINBHAI SOLANKI
                                                 Versus
                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       =====================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       =====================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                        Date : 25/11/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] With the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, the present writ petition is taken up for hearing.

[2] The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

A) Quashing and setting aside letter dt.17.10.2015 (Annexure-E) and directing the Respondents to pay lump sum financial assistance (compensation) as per the Government Resolution dt.5.7.2011.

B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

per the Government Resolution dt.5.7.2011.

C) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit."

[3] The short facts of the present case appear to be that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Pravinbhai Solanki, during the course of his service as a Sweeper with respondent No.3- College, died in harness on 20.11.2007. So, petitioner vide application dated 12.02.2008 requested the respondent No.3 - College to grant her compassionate appointment.

[3.1] It appears that vide its letter dated 19.02.2008, respondent No.3 - College has forwarded such request to respondent No.2 and subsequently, on 21.11.2012 also sent such request with supporting documents.

[3.2] It appears from the communications issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 - College that such proposal / request to grant compassionate appointment was never received by Office of respondent No.2 in the year 2008. So, respondent No.2 vide its impugned communication 17.10.2015, not found the case of the petitioner sustainable in light of the Government Resolution dated 5.07.2011.

                       [3.3]             Hence, the present petition.

                       [4]               At the outset, Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate

appearing for the petitioner would respectfully submit that claim of petitioner to receive compassionate appointment was submitted way back on 12.02.2008 by petitioner and the same was forwarded by respondent No.3 - College to respondent No.2 vide its letters dated 19.02.2008 and 21.11.2012 but the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

respondent - authority has erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground not sustainable in law, inasmuch as, claim of the petitioner was very much pending with respondent No.3 - College when new policy introduced by the State to grant compassionate compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.

[4.1] Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would respectfully submit that there was no fault attached with the petitioner, if for any reason, respondent - authority has not received her claim of compassionate appointment. It is respectfully submitted that as per the pleadings of respondent No.3- College, it has already forwarded her case to respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 19.02.2008, thereby, when new policy came with effect from 05.07.2011, as per Clause-5 of the policy, all pending application/s seeking compassionate appointment require/s to be disposed of as per this new scheme.

[4.2] Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would respectfully submit that due to inter se fight between the respondents, sufferer would be the petitioner who is a poor lady seeking justice since 2008. He has further submitted that when there is no malafide attached with the petitioner in seeking claim and as such, case of the petitioner is otherwise genuine to claim at least compassionate compensation in view of the policy dated 05.07.2011, her legitimate right to claim compassionate compensation should not be rejected on technicalities.

[4.3] By making the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would request this Court to allow the present

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

Writ Petition.

[5] Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Asst. Government Pleader would respectfully submit that it is a specific case of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in its reply that they have not received any proposal /request letter dated 19.02.2008 from respondent No.3 - College and having not received any proposal / request, it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner was pending for consideration when new policy introduced by Government on 05.07.2011.

[5.1] Mr. Rami, learned AGP would respectfully submit that outward register which was maintained by respondent No.3- College would clearly indicate that the entry is put up in such register whereby to show that respondent No.3 - College has in fact forwarded the letter dated 19.02.2008 to Office of respondent No.2.

[5.2] Mr. Rami, learned AGP would respectfully submit that when there is no fault on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, having not received any proposal from respondent No.3 in regards to claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, no order can be passed against them.

[6] Mr. Punit Juneja, learned advocate for respondent No.3 has taken this Court through the detailed reply filed by respondent No.3-college.

[7] Mr. Punit Juneja, learned advocate would submit that at given point of time, college has forwarded the case of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

petitioner to the Office of respondent No.2 for taking final decision in the matter. It has been further stated that due to termite infestation, some record and book of labourer is destroyed and not having complete record to substantiate the aforesaid fact.

[8] Mr. Punit Juneja, learned advocate would submit that as such, there was no lapse on part of college in not forwarding the case of the petitioner to respondent - higher authority.

[9] Heard learned advocates for the appearing parties at length.

[10] After considering the pleadings of the respective parties and after going through the documents which are made available, following facts are emerged from the record that:

i. Husband of the petitioner died on 20.11.2007, working as Sweeper in respondent No.3 - College and petitioner, in no time would seek compassionate appointment vide her application dated 12.02.2008.

ii. Her application appears to have been forwarded by respondent No.3 - College to Office of respondent No.2 on 19.02.2008.

iii. The new policy of the State introduced on 05.07.2011 wherein as per the Clause-5 of such policy, all pending application/s in relation to compassionate appointment need/s to be decided as per the new scheme / policy of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

the State Government.

iv. Respondent No.3 appears to have forwarded another letter dated 21.11.2012 to the Office of respondent No.2 whereby, provided material in support of the claim of the petitioner.

v. Having received such request / letter from respondent No.3 - College, respondent No.2 appears to have sent another communication and ultimately, vide its impugned communication dated 17.10.2015, finally decided that as they have not received any communication from respondent No.3 - College in the year 2008, as alleged, thus, as on the date of 05.07.2011, when new policy came into effect, no application of petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was pending. So, she would not entitle to get any relief.

[11] When this Court has appreciated the aforesaid facts and submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties, it can be gainsaid that since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in entire process of handling the case by respondents inter se. It remain undisputed that on 12.02.2008, petitioner already lodged her claim to receive benefit of compassionate appointment, although with respondent No.3 - College. It was incumbent upon respondent No.3 - College to forward such request to Office of respondent No.2, which prima facie appears to have been done by respondent No.3 - College vide its letter dated 19.02.2008.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

[12] True, as per the case of respondent No.2, such letter was not received from respondent No.3, at given point of time. Nonetheless, in such event, as such, no fault can be found with the petitioner who was waiting to get legitimate benefit i.e. compassionate appointment / compensation from respondents.

[13] Apart from aforesaid facts, the respondent - authority could have taken peculiar fact into account that claim of petitioner in regards to compassionate appointment then, without being too technical in the matter, especially when no fault at door stop of petitioner, it could have decided the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner on its own merits. Further, in light of the new policy framed by the State on 05.07.2011, thereby, instead of offering her compassionate appointment, it could have been offered compassionate compensation. None of such have been done by respondent- authority. This itself shows indifferent approach. Such type of claim ought to have been considered in more pragmatic, positive and liberal manner, rather taking too technical approach, as the intention of floating the policy by State to grant immediate relief to help the family of person (deceased employee) who lost life in harness during course of service. The laudable object and purpose of such policy is to afford immediate succor to the deceased employee which got frustrated when such claim denied on too technical a ground, like present case.

[14] Having considered all these aspects and taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, where no fault can be found with the petitioner, especially when her

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

application to seek compassionate appointment was pending filed in the year 2008, and never rejected / denied by respective authorities, prior to 5.7.2011, according to my view, in the interest of justice, such application needs to be treated as pending. Thus, it requires to be decided as per Clause-5 of aforesaid policy dated 5.7.2011 of respondent-State.

[15] In light of the aforesaid facts and due to foregoing reasons, I am of the view that impugned communication dated 17.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable in law, requires to be quashed and set aside, which is hereby quashed and set aside.

[16] Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment / compensation by considering that her application dated 12.02.2008 is pending when new policy dated 5.7.2011 introduced by respondent - State.

[17] Consequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid new policy dated 5.7.2011 issued by the respondent- State, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order but not later than 15.01.2026. A reason order be passed by respondent No.1/2 and same shall be communicated to petitioner.

[17.1] If everything found admissible and the petitioner is entitled to receive benefits as per aforesaid policy dated 5.7.2011 of respondent-State, respondents shall release such benefits to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025

undefined

the petitioner within a period of 15 days thereafter i.e. on or before 31.01.2026, failing which, the respondents are required to pay such benefits with 9% interest from 01.02.2026 till its realization.

[18] In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the present Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai