Court emphasized equity in treatment of compassionate appointments and limited retroactive benefits to three years from filing date.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Divya P. Bhatt for learned Advocate Mr. Vijay H. Nangesh for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. R.B. Thakor for the respondent No.1 and learned AGP Mr. Mitual Gautam for the respondent No.2-State.

2. Issue Rule. Learned Advocates for the respective respondents waive service of Rule.

3. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the issue raised in this petition is covered by a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10738 of 2020 and allied matters dated 14.03.2024 and whereas it is submitted that the said decision with a modification had been confirmed by the Division Bench. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that since the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioners of the above writ petitions, the same benefit as modified by the Division Bench, may be accorded to the present petitioner.

5. Learned AGP and learned advocate for the District Panchayat would not dispute the proposition as having been submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner.

6. It would appear that the petitioner before this Court, had been appointed on compassionate basis in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004, which prescribed the appointment on fixed pay on Ad- hoc basis for a period of 5 years and upon the petitioner having satisfactorily completed the period prescribed, the petitioner was to be absorbed in either Class III or the Class IV post, as the case may be. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been wrongly appointed on fixed pay on fixed term basis and whereas it is in this context that the persons identically situated to the petitioner, had approached this Court by preferring the writ petitions referred to hereinabove. It would appear that this Court, vide judgment dated 14.03.2024 having relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, had allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to issue modified appointment orders to the petitioners, whereby the period from date of appointment of the petitioners would be treated as a regular pay-scale. This Court had further directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits, which the petitioners would be entitled to upon the change in the date of the appointment orders, including arrears of benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.

7. It would appear that the State as well as some of the District Panchayats had preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of this Court vide Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 and allied matters and whereas the Division Bench vide common oral order dated 11.07.2024 had inter alia modified the said decision to the extent that the arrears, which those petitioners would be entitled to, would be restricted to a period of three years prior to date of filing of the writ petitions. The Division Bench has further clarified that the Division Bench had not disturbed the decision with regard to conferment of the regular pay-scale from initial date of appointment etc. as ordered by this Court.

8. Considering such a situation, more particularly since there is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner herein is identically situated to the petitioners of the group of petitions referred to hereinabove, the benefits as the petitioners of the above writ petitions had been conferred with, are required to be granted to the petitioner herein.

9. Having regard to the such a position, at the o