JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Both the captioned Letters Patent Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the respective appellants arise from same judgment dated 2.8.2021 of learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1837 of 2014, thereby learned single Judge directed that the appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.568 of 2022 - original petitioner would be entitled to be considered for lump-sum amount on compassionate ground under Resolution dated 5.7.2011. The authorities were directed to pay lump-sum amount to the petitioner as per the said Resolution.

2. The prayer in the main Special Civil Application of the petitioner was to grant compassionate appointment. Since the appointment was not directed to be given by the court but compensation was awarded, the petitioner felt aggrieved to prefer this appeal.

2.1 On the other hand, the appellant of the other Letters Patent Appeal - Patan District Panchayat, through District Development Officer, has sought to challenge the direction of learned single Judge in holding the petitioner entitled to the lump-sum amount under the said Resolution itself.

2.2 Accordingly, the other Letters Patent Appeal has came up for consideration.

3. Noticing the basic facts of the case of the original petitioner, his father late Vishnuprasad Joshi was working as Peon in the Road and Building Department under the Panchayat, Radhanpur. The father of the petitioner stated to be died on 22.11.2007 while on duty leaving behind two sons, one daughter and widow. It appears that on 24.12.2007, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the ground that the condition of family was pitiable at the relevant point of time.

3.1 The application was processed by authorities. On 2.9.2008 the District Development Officer, Patan addressed letter to the Executive Engineer calling upon further details from the petitioner, which details were furnished by the petitioner. On 23.7.2009 the request of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the family of the petitioner could not be said to be in pitiable or indigent condition.

3.2 The aforementioned communication dated 23.7.2009 figures on record which expresses the view that having regard to the retirement benefits received including the lump-sum amount, the financial condition of the family of the petitioner could not be said to be one to treat the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground. It appears that the case of the petitioner somehow came to be recommended again by the Executive Engineer and the same was rejected on the same ground as was done on 27.7.2010. The petitioner went on representating and yet another representation dated 16.6.2010 was submitted. This representation too was rejected.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he even applied under Right to Information Act and later filed the Special Civil Application praying to set aside orders dated 23.7.2009 and 16.6.2010 whereby the case of the petitioner was rejected.

4. Learned single Judge considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and another Vs. Maheshkumar, [2015 (7) SCC 412] to notice therefrom the principle that mere payment of the retirement benefit could not be a ground to conclude that the family of the deceased employee was put in good financial condition so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the kith and kin of the deceased employee.

4.1 The other aspect considered by the learned single Judge, as was raised by the respondent District Panchayat was about delay in conferment of the benefit on compassionate ground.

4.2 Admittedly, the petitioner had approached the court by filing Special Civil Application after lapse of almost five years. It appears that in the course of hearing of the petition, further affidavit was filed and the delay was attempted to be explained by the petitioner stating inter alia that after the father of the petitioner died due to brain hemorrhage, the family had to spent huge amo