IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment on compassionate basis was governed by the Resolution dated 10.3.2000, irrespective of the policy prevalent at the time of considering the applications.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Bhargavi Thakar on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia sought for being granted the benefit of being appointed on substantive/regular basis from his date of appointment and be given all benefits as accruing on the basis of such a direction.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it would appear to this Court that the issue raised in the present petition 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 the respondents had raised an issue of delay and latches in context of the appointment of the petitioners being of the year 2004 and thereabouts and whereas the petitioners having accepted the fixed pay appointment at the relevant point of time could not be permitted to turn around and challenge the said decision. It is the case of the petitioner that such a contention had been rejected by the learned Co-ordinate Bench, more particularly considering the decision of the State in case of one Manharbhai Ramanbhai Naik, who had been appointed on fixed pay in the year 1994 and whereas having regard to the observations of this Court in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1579 of 2002 decided on 07.10.2002, the Government had passed the above stated order whereby appointment was issued to the said Mr. Naik on regular basis from the date of initial appointment.

6.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 18.04.2022 had been challenged by the State by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 855 of 2022 and allied matters including Letters Patent Appeal No. 1050 of 2022 and whereas Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 05.09.2022 had rejected the Letters Patent Appeals, more particularly relying upon d