[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gitaben Jagdishbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13534 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
GITABEN JAGDISHBHAI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DADHICHI L LIMBOLA(10936) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 12/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule
on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. Heard Mr. Dadhichi L. Limbola, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Rami, learned AGP for the respondent-
State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.
(B) This Honourable court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus
or in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ that it may deem fit
directing the respondents authority to either appoint the petitioner
on Compassionate grounds or to pay lump sum compensation to
the petitioner.
(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further order(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(D) Be pleased to award cost of this petition from the respondents."
4. SHORT FACTS:
4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was serving as a
peon in the Industrial Training Institute, Amreli - Respondent
No. 2 herein and died in harness during his service on
13.12.2008 as he met with an accident.
4.2. The petitioner appears to have applied for compassionate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
appointment vide her application dated 15.09.2009, which
came to be rejected by the respondent vide its communication
dated 15.12.2009. It was rejected solely on the ground that she
is not possessing the requisite educational qualification, i.e.,
10th pass. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is only 4th
pass.
4.3. Thereafter, the petitioner again appears to have filed another
application dated 05.06.2012, requesting the respondents to
grant her appointment on compassionate basis and/or to give
lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution
dated 05.07.2011. Since the petitioner's claim was already
turned down by the respondent, then vide its communication
dated 14.08.2013, followed by communication dated
19.10.2013, such claim of the petitioner was again turned down.
4.4. It further appears that the petitioner again approached the
respondent to grant her lump sum compensation vide her
application dated 08.01.2016, which was also turned down by
the respondent vide its communication dated 04.03.2016.
Despite such rejection, one after another, again the petitioner
made another application on 11.03.2017, which also was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
rejected by the respondent vide its communication dated
22.05.2017. Hence, the present petition.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. Mr. Limbola, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would
submit that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and is not aware
about her right to challenge the first decision before this Court
and as such, her financial condition is very poor due to the
untimely death of her husband. It is submitted that mere delay
in filing the petition may not be a ground for rejection of
petitioner's claim.
5.2. Mr. Limbola, learned Advocate would further submit that as
per Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, whereby, the
respondent required to consider the claim of the petitioner to
give her compassionate appointment, wherein nowhere it has
been stated that compassionate appointee is required to possess
minimum educational qualification, i.e., 10th pass. It is
submitted that the decision taken by the respondent is not only
contrary to the aforesaid resolution but the same is
unsustainable in law. It is submitted that once the decision of
the respondent runs contrary to its own resolution, it violates
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the fundamental right of the petitioner to seek claim of
compassionate appointment.
5.3. Mr. Limbola, learned Advocate would further submit that, in
view of the subsequent resolution dated 05.07.2011, issued by
the State, at least the petitioner is entitled to receive lump sum
compensation which may help her to sustain her livelihood.
5.4. Making the above submissions, Mr. Limbola, learned
Advocate would request this Court to allow the present writ
petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:
6.1. Per contra, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would vehemently oppose
this petition on the ground that there is an inordinate delay on
the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, that too
seeking a relief of compassionate appointment/compensation as
the case may be. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner
was already rejected way back in the year 2009 and thereafter
also in the years 2013, 2016 and 2017 respectively, the claim of
the petitioner was not entertained by the respondent. Whereas,
the present petition is filed in the year 2021, it may not be
entertained by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
6.2. Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that once the claim of
compassionate appointment has been rejected by the
respondent in the year 2009, it was a cause of action for the
petitioner to challenge such decision and there was no reason
for the petitioner, maybe illiterate one, to file application after
application seeking compassionate appointment or lump sum
compensation, as the case may be.
6.3. Mr. Rami, learned AGP would further submit that the claim of
compassionate appointment cannot be equated with
fundamental right, as the object and purpose of granting
compassionate appointment is to help the family who lost their
bread earner and to give immediate succour to the family of the
deceased employee, who left the family in precarious situation.
6.4. Making the above submissions, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would
request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. No other and further submissions are being made.
ANALYSIS:
8. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and after perusal of the pleadings and documents made
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
available on record, following would emerge;
8.1. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner died
during the course of service on 13.12.2008 and the petitioner's
application seeking compassionate appointment came to be
rejected by the respondent on 15.12.2009. Thereafter, she had
filed repeatedly one after another in all 3 applications, in the
year 2013, 2016 & 2017, respectively, sought the similar relief.
All these applications came to be rejected in the respective
years. Last such rejection was in the year 2017. This petition
was filed on 17.09.2021, i.e., almost after about 12 years from
first rejection on 15.12.2009. The delay in approaching this
Court is visible and this itself is a ground not to entertain the
claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.
9. The law on the issue of compassionate appointment is no
longer res integra and succinctly discussed by the Honourable
Apex Court in its recent decision in the case of Canara Bank vs.
Ajitkumar G.K., reported in AIR 2025 SC 1232 : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 290, wherein, after referring the previous
precedents on the issue germane in the case on hand, case law is
discussed and summarized, held thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
"JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE OF
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
[10] The policy to appoint a dependant family member of
an employee who has died-in-harness or has been
medically rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby
leaving the family in utter penury, is not of too distant an
origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to have
originated during the seventies of the last century and
gained momentum in the following decades with this
Court laying down guidelines from time to time for grant
of compassionate appointment. The rationale for such
appointment has been explained in Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1997 8 SCC 85 in
the following words:
"8. The rule of appointments to public service is that
they should be on merits and through open
invitation. It is the normal route through which one
can get into a public employment. However, as
every rule can have exceptions, there are a few
exceptions to the said rule also which have been
evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one
such exception relief is provided to the bereaved
family of a deceased employee by accommodating
one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to
give succour to the family which has been suddenly
plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and
again that the object of providing such ameliorating
relief should not be taken as opening an alternative
mode of recruitment to public employment."
[11] Decisions of this Court on the contours of
appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it
would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled
principles, which have crystallized through precedents
into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but
contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is
offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the
rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see
General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain,
2008 8 SCC 475 ].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the
absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 10 SCC 246].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in
two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general
rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family
either on account of death or of medical invalidation of
the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v.
Union of India, 2008 13 SCC 730].
d) The whole object of granting compassionate
employment by an employer being intended to enable the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
family members of a deceased or an incapacitated
employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis,
appointments on compassionate ground should be made
immediately to redeem the family in distress [see
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989 4 SCC 468].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment
permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict
interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi
Devi, 2009 11 SCC 453].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a
right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be
satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das,
2008 15 SCC 560].
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of
inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar
Sengar, 2009 13 SCC 600].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the
scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to
the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad
Sonkar v. Union of India, 2011 4 SCC 209].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the
occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the
concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family),
as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without
considering the financial condition of the family of the
deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Amrita Sinha, 2021 20 SCC 695].
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to
be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in
any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a
presumption could be drawn that the family of the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate
need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being
a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at
any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the
lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, 2009 13 SCC 112].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give
a member of a family of the deceased employee a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering
compassionate employment as a matter of course
irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the
deceased and making compassionate appointments in
posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC
138].
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee
is the first precondition to bring the case under the
scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of
indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance
for relief from financial destitution is taken away from
compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a
reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee
who died while in service which would directly be in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of
India v. B. Kishore, 2011 13 SCC 131].
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to
provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 6 SCC 162].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing
financial distress and that an appointment on
compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such
distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the
eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, 2012 9 SCC 545].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time
as the applicant becomes a major after a number of
years, unless there are some specific provisions [see
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 7 SCC 192].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal
benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing
employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and
that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate
appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who
was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be
considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see
Canara Bank (supra)].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many
years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or
without due consideration of the financial resources
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated
employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of
Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, 2007 2 SCC 481].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered
[see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder
Singh, 1998 5 SCC 452].
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the
deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to
determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury.
The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of
"not very well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB)
v. Kunti Tiwary, 2004 7 SCC 271].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased
employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be
evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand
defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and
every dependent of an employee dying-in harness would
claim employment as if public employment is heritable
[see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, 2012 11
SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh, 2006
7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
v. Nank Chand, 2004 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National
Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 7 SCC 265].
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family
income including the family pension and income of family
from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
taken into consideration by the authority to decide
whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh
(supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee
under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment
cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment.
Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of
compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL,
2000 6 SCC 493]
w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure
which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While,
undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be
borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an
income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity
and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see
State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, 2019 3 SCC 653].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by
sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar,
1994 2 SCC 718].
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment
dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of
the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors
such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur,
2007 9 SCC 571].
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an
appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v.
Dharmendra Sharma, 2007 8 SCC 148].
It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the
decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of
two Judges.
[30] The observation in Kunti Tiwary (supra) noted above
seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration
therefrom in making the observation that no appointment
on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a
matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the
laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.
[45] The ratio decidendi of all these decisions have
to be read in harmony to achieve the noble goal of
giving succour to the dependants of the employee
dying-in-harness, who are genuinely in need, and
not with the aim of giving them a post for another
post. One has to remember in this connection the
caution sounded in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that
as against the destitute family of the deceased there are
millions of other families which are equally, if not more,
destitute."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Honourable Apex Court, applying to the case on hand, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the merits
of the claim of the petitioner after these many years. The entire
object of granting compassionate appointment lost its
significance after these many years as husband of petitioner
died in the year 2008 and this petition filed in the year 2021.
There is a reason to believe that family of deceased employee
(including petitioner) is able to survive for these many years,
then petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment cannot
be considered.
11. It may be true that at the relevant point of time, as per the
policy of the Government in the form of resolution dated
10.03.2000, whereby, it was decided to grant compassionate
appointment to one of the family members of Class III and
Class IV employee who died in harness, there is no requirement
that compassionate appointee must possess minimum
qualification, i.e., 10th pass. As observed above, considering
the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court, it would not be appropriate to decide
such issue; rather the relief as regards compassionate
appointment sought by the petitioner in this petition requires
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches.
12. So far as the claim of the petitioner as regards lump sum
compensation is concerned, it appears that the petitioner
submitted application after application in this regard before the
authority in the years 2013, 2016 and 2017 respectively, mainly
on the ground that as per the resolution dated 05.07.2011, she
may be granted lump sum compensation.
13. Again, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained simply
on the ground that as per clause Nos. 5 and 6 of the said
resolution, which would clearly suggest that any claim of
applicant seeking compassionate appointment which is rejected
prior to the said resolution, in such cases, it shall not be
reviewed again. It is so mentioned that the said policy of the
Government (granting lum sum compensation) will apply to
applications which are pending as on 05.07.2011.
Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, the application of the
petitioner filed in the year 2009 came to be rejected on
15.12.2009. Thus, as on the date of 05.07.2011, no application
of the petitioner in regard to compassionate appointment can
be said to have been pending. Subsequent to said rejection,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13534/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
merely filing application after application seeking
compensation would not allow the petitioner to sustain the
claim of lum sum compensation against the respondent. Thus,
the claim of the petitioner seeking relief of lump sum
compensation also cannot be granted.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusions, I do not find
any merit in this petition, which requires to be dismissed and
the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
NILESH
