Gujarat High Court

Lilaben Veljibhai Makwana Wd/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/9730/2019                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9730 of 2019


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                       Yes            No


                        ==========================================================
                        LILABEN VELJIBHAI MAKWANA WD/O TULSIBHAI RATNABHAI VAGHELA
                                                    & ANR.
                                                    Versus
                                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR ANAND B GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners
                        MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondents - State Authorities
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 16/09/2025

                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the

following main prayers.

"14(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or orders etc of the appropriate nature, quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of Respondent Vide Deputy Director's No.D-4/U.N.SA/Late Shri Tulsibhai Vaghela/18/35998 dated 11.12.2018 annexed as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

Annexure-A. And Respondent's may be directed to grant payment of lumps-um Financial Assistance to the Petitioner(s) family under relevant Scheme, with interest at the rate as the Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstance of the case."

2. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith.

With the consent of the learned advocates, this matter is

taken up for hearing and final disposal today.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Gogia for the petitioner has

submitted that reading of the impugned order dated

11.12.2018, whereby the respondent authorities have rejected

the application for lump-sum compensation in lieu of

compassionate appointment to the petitioner/s. He has further submitted that the moot question required to be considered

shall be the meaning and interpretation and applicability /

eligibility of the scheme to the petitioner/s in the facts of the

case where the petitioner - widow is working as Gramin Dak

Sevak in Postal Department whether can be considered as an

Government Employee or not. In support of his submissions,

he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of AIR 2019 SC 1493.

3.2 He has further submitted that the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

authorities have passed the impugned order based on the GR

dated 05.07.2011, more particularly Clause 3(5) thereof. He

has submitted that the petitioner/s is not an employee of the

Central Government in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, therefore, the petitioner/s is entitled to get

lump-sum compensation under the GR dated 05.07.2011. He

has submitted that this petition may be allowed.

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

has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit

in reply filed by the State authorities. She has tendered a

copy of the communication dated 14.05.2013 received from the

office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, whereby

it transpires that the amount of gratuity has been paid to

the petitioner/s and family pension is fixed.

4.2 She has further submitted that on receipt of the

application from the petitioner for getting lump-sum

compensation as per the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, the

respondent authorities concerned have come to the knowledge

that the petitioner/s was working in the Postal Department

and on being sought the details from the Post Department, it

was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities that

the petitioner/s is working in the Indian Postal Service on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

the post of Gramin Dak Sevak having a pay scale of

Rs.3635-65-5585. The Postal Department has also send the

salary slip of the petitioner/s for ready reference. Therefore,

the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of

the petitioner.

4.3 She has submitted that the petitioner/s has

wrongly interpreted the GR dated 05.07.2011 that the post on

which the petitioner is working is not a sanctioned post of

the State Government or Central Government employee and

therefore, the Clause 3(5) of the GR is not applicable to the

present petitioner/s. She has further submitted that the broad

meaning of the GR dated 05.07.2011 is that the dependent

husband/wife of the deceased employee should not have been

employed at the time of the death of the employee.

Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner/s keeping in mind the object of

the scheme for providing lump-sum compensation to the

dependent. She has submitted that this petition may be

dismissed.

5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by

the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have

perused the documents available on record. From the record,

it transpires that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

of petitioner No.2 - Tulsibhai Ratnabhai Vaghela was

working as Sweeper in Civil Hospital, Rajkot. He has expired

on 05.05.2012. Therefore, petitioner No.2 has made an

application for compassionate appointment immediately. The

said application was rejected by the respondent authorities on

the ground that the scheme for providing compassionate

appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee is

not in existence as it is replaced with the scheme of

providing lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate

appointment vide GR dated 05.07.2011.

5.2 At this stage, we cannot overlook the object of the

scheme. The object of the Gujarat Government's Resolution of

05.07.2011 for lump-sum compensation is to provide

immediate financial relief to the families of deceased

government employees who face sudden financial hardship, enabling them to cope with the crisis when a compassionate

appointment might not be suitable or possible. This scheme

replaces the previous compassionate appointment policy,

offering a direct financial payment as a one-time succor to

the family.

5.3 In view of above, the key aspects of the object of

the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 are as under :

 Immediate Financial Relief : The primary goal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

is to provide swift financial assistance to the

family to help them manage the economic crisis

following the death of the sole breadwinner.

 Alternative to Compassionate Appointment : The

lump-sum compensation was introduced as an

alternative to compassionate appointment,

acknowledging that providing employment might

not always be the best or most feasible solution.

 Addressing Sudden Crisis : The compensation

aims to help the family cope with the sudden,

unexpected financial stringency that arises from

the death of an employee.

 One-Time Succor : The payment is intended as

a singular, one-time benefit to support the

family during their difficult period, rather than being a continuous source of income

5.4 It is a matter or record that the petitioner/s - the

widow is working in the Department of Post and is therefore

earning. The object of the G.R. dated 05.07.2011, noted above,

would be to provide swift financial assistance to the family to

help them manage the economic crisis following the death of

the sole breadwinner.

5.5 It is pertinent to note here that the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

authorities have time and again informed the petitioner/s to

apply for getting lump-sum compensation, however, for the

reasons best known to the petitioner/s, the application for

getting lump-sum compensation has not been made by the

petitioner/s for about four years. The demeanor of the

petitioner/s smacks a lot. Thus, it transpires that the

petitioner/s was not in need of financial assistance at that

time.

5.6 In view of above as well as looking to the object

of the scheme, this Court finds that while framing the

scheme by the Government, it was kept in mind that the

compensation aims to help the family cope with the sudden,

unexpected financial stringency that arises from the death of

an employee. In the present case, this Court does not find any financial stringency arisen. Therefore, this petition needs

to be dismissed.

6. Further, with regard to the contention that

whether the petitioner/s - widow, working as Gramin Dak

Sevak in the Postal Department, can be considered as an

employee of the Government or not is concerned, this Court

finds as under.

(i) Firstly, that is not the issue on hand before this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9730/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025

undefined

Court that whether the petitioner/s - a widow is a

Government employee or not.

(ii) Secondly, the object of the scheme i.e. G.R. dated

05.07.2011 speaks otherwise. It is not on

'Government employee' or 'Non-Government

employee'. As noted above, the object to provide

swift financial assistance to the family to help

them manage the economic crisis following the

death of the sole breadwinner. In the present case,

the deceased employee was not the sole

breadwinner in the family. The petitioner/s -

widow is also working the Postal Department

indisputably.

(iii) Thirdly, the respondent authorities have time and

again informed in writing to apply for the lump-

sum compensation in lieu of compassionate

appointment to the Government and provide

necessary details / information for about four

years, however, the petitioner/s did not pay any

heed towards it and applied for getting financial

assistance.

7. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the

NEUTRAL CITATION