Gujarat High Court

Hardik Maheshbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/18027/2014                                    ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18027 of 2014

                       ==========================================================
                                                       HARDIK MAHESHBHAI RAVAL
                                                                 Versus
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                            Date : 11/09/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the

following main prayers.

" 9(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-'A' to this petition rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner as at the time of death of late father of the petitioner, the policy of 2011 was not in existence but the policy dated 10.3.2010

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

was in force which provides that the person could apply for compassionate appointment within two years from the date his/her becoming major."

2. Heard learned advocates.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the

petitioner has submitted that the first application was made

by the petitioner when he was minor and thereafter, another

application was made when he became major; and that it

cannot be said that the application of the petitioner was not

submitted within time and on this ground, no adverse order

could have been passed; and that the application would be

made within two years of attaining majority as per the policy

dated 10.03.2000 of the State; and that the petitioner has

been making his efforts for compassionate appointment and time and again, he was trying to approach one and other

authority and following the same from 2007 onwards and

even the authorities have recommended his case to the State

authorities, even though the State Authorities have rejected

the claim; and that if a person claims compassionate

appointment then the policy for compassionate appointment

which was prevailing at the time of death of the employee

who died in harness has to be applied and not the

subsequent policy; and that change of rule that no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

compassionate appointment would be given and only monetary

benefits would be given, would not apply in the case of the

petitioner as at the time of death of the father of the

petitioner, the policy was not applicable as the policy came to

be issued only in 2011 and not before that. He has

submitted that this petition may be allowed.

3.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon

the following decisions.

(i) 2007 (3) JT 35 - State Bank of India versus Jaspal Kaur

(ii) 2007 (15) GJH 49 - Thakore Bharatkumar harising versus Gujarat Gawn Seva Pasandgi Mandal

(iii) 2007 (3) GLH 313 - Special civil Application No.603 of 2004

(iv) 2011 (1) GCD 581 - Tarik Alikhan Gagdani versus State of Gujarat

4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Pooja Ashar for the State has vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn

the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed

by the State Authorities and has submitted that the

petitioner's father was expired on 19.11.2007. He was working

as a work charge assistant and thereafter the petitioner has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

applied for compassionate appointment, when he was minor,

on 13.02.2008, which was forwarded to the Gujarat Sub-

ordinate State Service Selection Board on 30.04.2008, and the

same was rejected by the Board on the ground that the

petitioner is not having minimum age for appointment on

compassionate appointment. She has further submitted that

thereafter the petitioner has again applied on 01.05.2009 after

completing 18 years on the basis of G.R. dated 10.12.1987,

whereby minimum age limit is 17 years; and that the

petitioner's application was forwarded to the Board and the

same is rejected on the ground that the G.R. dated

10.12.1987 is not applied in the present case as G.R. dated

10.03.2000 is applicable since the father of the petitioner has

died in the year 2007 and therefore, 18 years would be the

age for employment and the application should be made within three months from the date of the employee. She has

also submitted that thereafter again, on 14.06.2012, the

petitioner has made an application after he became major th and he completed 12 standard examination and CCC

examination, which was also rejected by the authorities on

10.01.2013. In support of her submissions, she has relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Canara Bank versus Ajithkumar G.K. reported 2025 (0)

AIJEL-SC 74716. She has submitted that this petition may

be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by

the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have

perused the documents on record.

6.1 From the record, it transpires that the father of

the petitioner - Shri Maheshbhai Vallabhai Raval was

working as work-charge assistant. He has expired on

19.11.2007. The petitioner has made an application for

compassionate appointment on 13.02.2008. The petitioner was

minor at that time. The authorities have rejected the said

application on that ground as per the Government Resolution

dated 10.03.2000.

6.2 After attaining the age of majority the petitioner

has again made an application for getting compassionate appointment on 01.05.2009 on the basis of the G.R. dated

10.12.1987, whereby minimum age limit is 17 years. The said

application was also rejected by the respondent Authorities on

the ground that the father of the petitioner has expired on

19..11.2007, therefore, the G.R. dated 10.12.1987 is not

applicable to the facts of the present case; and that the G.R.

dated 10.03.2000 is applicable.

6.3 Thereafter, again on 14.06.2012, the petitioner has

made an application for compassionate appointment after

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

th completed 12 standard examination in March, 2012 as well

as after passing CCC examination. The said application has

also been rejected by the respondent authorities on the

ground that the respondent authorities have rejected his

claim earlier vide communication impugned dated 10.01.2013,

which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

6.4 We cannot overlook the object of the scheme. 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, after the sad demise of the father

of the petitioner, he has made an application for compassionate appointment when he was minor and he was

not supposed to be major within six months.

6.5 It is required to be noted at this stage that the

father of the petitioner has expired on 19.11.2007. At that

time, the G.R. dated 10.03.2000 was in existence, wherein

there is a clause that the dependent who intends to get

compassionate appointment should be major and he should

possess requisite educational qualification at that time; and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

that the said application should be made within three months

from the death of the employee. In the present case, the

petitioner has made an application within stipulated time,

but, indisputably, he was a minor and not likely to be a

major within six months and he was not possessing requisite

educational qualification also, which is the requirement of the

Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. The case of the

petitioner would not fall within the said G.R. which was in

existence at the relevant time.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

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 Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."

6.7 Further, on attaining the age of majority, the

petitioner has made an application again on 01.05.2009 on

the basis of the G.R. dated 10.12.1987 where minimum age

limit is 17 years. That G.R. is also not applicable to the case

of the petitioner as the G.R. dated 10.03.2000 was in

existence at that time, therefore, the said G.R. dated 10.12.1987 is not applicable to the facts of the present case

at all at that time. The authorities have rightly rejected the

second application of the petitioner accordingly.

6.8 For the sake of presumption, if we consider the

second application of the petitioner is proper, the same was

filed after about two years from the death of the employee.

Therefore also, the same may be treated as delay in

approaching the authority for compassionate appointment and

it is against the G.R. dated 10.03.2000 which was in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

existence because the petitioner has not made an application

within stipulated time of three months.

6.9 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- 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

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 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."

6.10 Additionally, this Court has failed to understand

that why the mother of the petitioner being a widow and an

elder brother of the petitioner had not applied for

compassionate appointment at that time, who have given

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18027/2014 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025

undefined

consent to the petitioner to make an application for

compassionate appointment. Be that as it may. It is for them

to take a call in this regard at the relevant point of time.

6.11 There cannot be any dispute with regard to the

law enunciated in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court