SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 2089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
 
Shoyab Mahamad Khoja , Talati Cum Mantri - Petitioner 
Versus 
District Development Officer & Anr. – Respondents 
R/Special Civil Application No. 10067 of 2025
Decided On : 25-09-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Himanish J. Japee.
For the Respondents: MS Dhruti Pandya, AGP, Mr. Nisarg N. Jain.

The court affirmed that employees appointed on compassionate grounds are entitled to regular pay scales from the initial date of appointment, subject to a limit of three years for the payment of arrears based on filing dates.

Headnote:(A) Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004 - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner's appointment on fixed pay on ad-hoc basis challenged - Court upheld entitlement to benefits as per modified appointment order, consistent with earlier rulings - Compensation of arrears limit set to three years prior to filing date as directed in previous judgments. (Para 6-11)

(B) Writ petitions - Similar cases - Court ruled when petitions similar in nature are adjudicated, benefits ought to be uniformly extended to all petitioners, irrespective of procedural delays - Directives given to issue modified appointment orders treating previous terms as regular pay scale. (Para 9)

(C) Delay and latches - Court addressed arguments on delay stating that compassionate appointment inquiries should focus on substantive policies rather than adherence to procedural timelines - Emphasis on adhering to the relevant policies as established in prior judgments. (Para 10).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on a compassionate basis under a prior government resolution and challenged the method of his fixed-term appointment compared to similarly situated persons who had gained benefits from previous rulings.

Findings of Court:
Court directed issuance of modified appointment orders for the petitioner, granting him the same benefits and pay scale as indicated in prior rulings and underscoring the necessity for timely administration of justice.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits relating to the modification of his appointment under existing policy regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that delays in processing claims should not undermine the substantive right of the petitioner to receive parity with other similar petitioners who have received benefits under the same policy.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. initial hearings and agreements on rule issuance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's argument based on prior case precedents. (Para 4 , 5)
3. background on petitioner's employment and previous court ruling. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court's examination of related cases and principles applying to the situation. (Para 9 , 11)
5. final orders stipulating compliance and directions for the future. (Para 10 , 12)

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. J.V. Japee for learned Advocate Mr. Himanish Japee for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. Nisarg Jain for the respondent No.1 and learned AGP Ms. Dhruti Pandya 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 Class III. 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 gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top