Point of Law: It is also not in dispute that after lifting of the ban, the District Compassionate Committee recommended the appellant's appointment as teacher on compassionate ground and he was appointed against the vacant post by the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. That order was neither rescinded nor modified by the competent authority on the premise that after coming into force of the 2006 Rules, the appellant could have been appointed only by the Panchayat Samiti on the post of Prakhand Teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that the appellant could have been appointed only as a Prakhand Teacher by the Panchayat Samiti on fixed pay. Unfortunately, the Division Bench overlooked the fact that the appellant had been appointed as per the policy of compassionate appointment framed by the State Government and that policy does not envisage the appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee on fixed pay.”

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for granting her regular pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 as class-IV employee instead of monthly fixed amount of Rs.1500/- from 12.8.2004 i.e. date of her joining and to pay the arrears with 12% interest thereon. The husband of the petitioner was serving with the office of Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Harij as Peon who died on 15.10.2000 while in service.

2. Pursuant to policy of the State Government, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. After examining the case of the petitioner, the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board (for short, ‘GSSSB’), who is authority to examine the cases of dependents of deceased employee to be appointed on compassionate ground, after she was found fulfilling the criteria according to the scheme recommended for appointment vide letter dated 26.2.2004 to the office of the Commissioner, Gujarat Vigilance Commission, Gandhinagar. The copy of the said letter is annexed with the petition at page No.6. The contents of the letter reflects that since she had crossed the upper age limit for the appointment to the post she was offered, in view of Government Resolution dated 7.9.2004, the Vigilance Commission was asked to grant / sanction relaxation in upper age limit. She was further recommended for the appointment in Class-IV as ‘Hamal’ on compassionate ground. The Vigilance Commission was also directed to examine original documents and to verify whether she fulfills all other criteria for the purpose of recruitment or not. By the very said letter, the ‘GSSSB’ had directed the Vigilance Commission to give her appointment immediately and to inform the concern Department as also ‘GSSSB’.

3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 3.3.2004, she had reported for duty with the office of the Gujarat Vigilance Commission, however, she was not permitted to resume the duty. Therefore, vide communication dated 12.4.2004, the ‘GSSSB’ directed her to join duty as ‘Sweeper’ in the office of Director, Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Gandhinagar in Class- IV. There also, she was not permitted to resume the duty and therefore, at last, ‘GSSSB’ vide a letter dated 9.7.2004, she was directed to resume duty in the office of Commissioner, Health and Medical Services and Medical Education (Health Section) as Class-IV employee and pursuant thereto, she resumed duty on 12.8.2004 at Community Health Center, Siddhpur. According to her case, she was offered appointment in Class-IV, after she was found suitable even under compassionate appointment scheme dated 10.3.2000 of the State Government. It is further the case of the petitioner that for the administrative non coordination between the departments and the ‘GSSSB’, she was not permitted to resume the duty, though directed to be appointed vide letter dated 26.2.2004 by ‘GSSSB’.

4. The day on which she joined the services i.e. 12.8.2004, she was appointed on fixed salary of Rs.1500/- per month pursuant to a resolution dated 15.6.2004 whereby, State Government has come out with another Resolution offering service to the dependent of an employee who died in harness on compassionate ground as ad-hoc appointment, that too, on fixed pay.

5. Mr.Anand Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the day on which she is found to be eligible and recommended for appointment by the competent authority under the scheme itself, the petitioner was entitled to have the appointment on and from that date under then existing scheme. Because of inter departmental non coordination with ‘GSSSB’, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits. Had she been appointed on that date or before the change of policy, she would have drawn regular pay scale. It is further submitted that twice, before the change of policy regarding ad-hoc appointment on fixed pay, she was recommended for the appointment. It is because of non coordination and fault of the department, she could not be appointed pri