Gujarat High Court
Snehal Bhikhabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat Thro.Secretary on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9306/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9306 of 2013
==========================================================
SNEHAL BHIKHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO.SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VIRAJ A SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers : -
"6. (A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the inaction on the part of the
concerned respondent authority for not considering the
representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the
order of this Honourable Court for giving compassionate
appointment to the present petitioner though the
petitioner is entitled and appropriate writ, order or
direction may kindly be issued upon the concerned
respondent authority to give the compassionate
appointment to the present petitioner pursuant to the
resolution No. 269 dated 22.02.2010;
(C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside the action of the
respondent authority for publishing the advertisement for
giving appointment on different post in Nagar Palika dated
16.03.2013;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9306/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
appointment that may be given pursuant to the
advertisement published in the Daily Newspaper dated
16.03.2013 on different post until the case of the present
petitioner for giving compassionate appointment may be
considered pursuant to the resolution No. 269";
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit R. Joshi appearing for
the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Viraj A. Shah appearing for
the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that after the
death of the father of the petitioner, he had applied for the post
of Safai Kamdar in the year 1999 seeking compassionate
appointment, and at that point of time, the petitioner was minor
and going to be major in the year 2003. Learned advocate has
submitted that considering the prevailing policy and considering
the various judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner is required to
be considered, which is not considered. The Nagarpalika has
rejected the same on the erroneous ground that the Government
has given the directions not to give any compassionate
appointment. Learned advocate has submitted that the said
directions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and
therefore, the petition is required to be allowed by considering
the case of the petitioner by directing the respondent -
Nagarpalika to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Viraj A. Shah appearing for
the respondent - State has filed affidavit-in-reply, whereby it is
stated that a proposal is prepared and sent to the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9306/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
by a communication dated 01.09.2011, whereby the proposal of
the 11 employees including the present petitioner for giving
compassionate appointment was rejected. It is also pointed out
that by way of the circular dated 26.06.2003, and pursuant to
that letter dated 30.06.2003 addressed by the Director of
Municipality, by which it has been informed to all the
Nagarpalikas not to give compassionate appointment and
present petitioner was left out for giving compassionate
appointment though he was eligible and entitled because his
father was serving as Draftsman in Survey Department of the
Nadiad Nagarpalika.
5. Considering the said reply and considering the fact that
much time has been passed after the death of the original
employee who has expired in the year 1999, and the fact that at
the time of death of the employee, the petitioner was not
eligible to apply for the post as he was minor, and also
considering the fact that there is a Government policy, by which
the Government has prohibited the Nagarpalika to consider the
case for compassionate appointment as well as considering the
fact that the petition is filed in the year 2013 and now being
decided in the year 2025, and also considering the recent
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank
versus Ajit Kumar G.K. reported in AIR 2025 SC 1232,
whereby the specific guidelines are given, I am of the view that
the case of the present petitioner cannot be considered on
merits as well as in view of the fact that much time has lapsed.
The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to give
immediate relief to the bereaved family, who is facing financial
crunch due to death of the sole bread winner. In the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9306/2013 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
case, the death of the employee has taken place in the year
1999 and now, in the year 2025, no effective relief can be
granted to the present petitioner. Moreover, considering the
reply of the respondent and stand taken by the respondent, no
case is made out for compassionate appointment, otherwise
also, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent
judgment that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as
a matter of right.
6. Considering all these aforesaid aspects, the present
petition deserves to be dismissed and is DISMISSED
accordingly as no case is made out to grant any relief. Rule is
discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
AMAR SINGH
