IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioners on compassionate grounds was based on the Resolution dated 10.3.2000, and the subsequent policy dated 15.6.2004 did not affect their entitlement to compassionate appointment.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Himnish Japee, learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar and learned advocate Ms.Kiran Udasi for learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr.Sahil Trivedi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nidhi Vyas on behalf of the respondent – State.

1.1. Learned advocate Mr.Himnish Japee appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Applications No.6533/2024 and 6562/2024 tenders a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out right away.

2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have inter alia sought for being granted the benefit of being appointed on substantive/regular basis from their date of appointment and be given all benefits as accruing on the basis of such a direction.

3. At the outset, it requires to be noted that while this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue stands covered by decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10738/2020 and allied matters dated 14.03.2020, it would also appear that the respondents herein in addition to the State Government is the District Development Officer/District Panchayat as the case may be.

4. Since the aspects require consideration of this Court only on the legal aspect and whereas since it appears to this Court that the respondents have been given an opportunity to approach this Court in case if it is found at a later stage that even prior to filing of the present petition, the petitioners had already approached this Court for the very selfsame relief and which had been rejected by this Court, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any notice to the respondent authorities and whereas with the assistance rendered by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders, the issue is taken up for final decision.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the petitioners and learned AGPs, it would appear to this Court that the issue raised in the present petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 14.03.2024 rendered in Special Civil Application No.10738/2020 and allied matters. Considering such a situation, more particularly, since the identical nature of submissions have been raised by both the sides, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs no.5 to 11.8 of the said decision as hereinabove:-

“5. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the respondent-State, instead of following the policy which was prevailing on the date of demise of the employee concerned, had considered the cases on basis of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004 which had resulted in the petitioners being appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of five years and whereas the prayers sought for being that the date of appointment of the petitioners on ad hoc basis to be treated as a substantive/regular appointment on regular pay scale and the petitioners to be given all benefits as accruing to the petitioners on basis of such a consideration.

6. At this stage, it is clarified that since the petitioners are all raising a common question of law, therefore the facts as much as are necessary and relevant for deciding the said question of law are being referred to herein below and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court elaborate examination of the facts would not be necessary.

6.1. It is the case of the petitioners that this Court has already decided number of petitions where the same grievance had been raised and whereas reference is made to decision of a learned Co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.04.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14642 of 2019, whereby the learned Co-ordinate Bench had inter alia allowed the petition by directing the respondents to issue modified orders of appointment in case of the petitioners therein and place them in regular scale of pay from the initial date of appointment and whereas arrears were to be given to the petitioners from 01.04.2020.

6.2. It is the case of the petitioners that t