Compassionate appointments should align with substantive employment rights, and any delay in claims does not negate entitlements when based on continuing wrongs.

ORDER :

Nikhil S. Kariel, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Himanish Japee for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent-State in all the petitions and learned Advocate Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No. 8420 of 2025, learned Advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No. 8524 of 2025, learned Advocate Mr. Nisarg N. Jani for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No. 8812 of 2025 and learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No. 9333 of 2025 .

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

3. Since a common issue has been raised in all these writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, the present petitions are taken up for final hearing together.

4. At the outset, learned advocate for the respective petitioners would submit that the issue raised in these petitions 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 petitioners that since the petitioners are 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 petitioners.

5. Learned AGP and learned advocates for the District Panchayats would not dispute the proposition as having been submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners.

6. It would appear that the petitioners before this Court, had been appointed on compassionate basis in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004, which prescribed the appointments on fixed pay on Ad- hoc basis for a period of 5 years and upon the petitioners having satisfactorily completed the period prescribed, the petitioners were to be absorbed in either Class III or the Class IV posts, as the case may be. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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 disturb