IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11140 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

==========================================================

ALPESHKUMAR MAHESHKUMAR SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AJAY L PANDAV(3660) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT Date : 02/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Keyur A. Vyas, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. With consent of learned advocate of respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay L. Pandav, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.

3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) to admit & allow this petition;

(B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/s and/or direction/s directing to the respondent/s authorities to modify the impugned Order dated-28.06.2018 (Annexure-A-hereto) being No. 2302/2018 passed by the present respondent no.2/authority for the compassionate appointment of the present petitioner qua the fix pay salary for a period of 05 (Five) years and confirm the compassionate appointment of the present petitioner with full pay salary from the date of his appointment in the interest of justice;

(C) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent/s authorities to appoint the present petitioner in his compassionate service on the basis of the appropriate concerned policy with full pay salary in the interest of justice;

(D) to grant any other and further relief/s which may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. At the outset, Mr.Pandav, learned advocate for the petitioner would place reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 19.01.2026 passed in Special Civil Application No.7018 of 2017 and argued that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

4.1. Mr.Pandav, learned advocate would further submit that the petitioner was offered a compassionate appointment upon the untimely death of his father, who died in harness while serving with respondent No.3. However, the said appointment stipulates that for the initial five years, he is to be appointed on a fixed wage of Rs.7,100/- and thereafter he would receive regular pay-scale, which is unsustainable in law.

4.2. Mr.Pandav, learned advocate would further submit that the respondent has wrongly placed reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 08.05.2006 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of the State as it would not apply to the cases of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on regular pay-scale and upon his demise, the petitioner appointed on compassionate ground on 17.07.2018.

5. Per contra, Ms.Sukhadwala, learned AGP would submit that it is a policy decision of the Government to appoint a person on fixed wages for five years, after which his services may be regularized. Therefore, there is no error in the order of appointment issued by respondent No.3.

6. Mr. Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3, would adopt the argument of Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP.

7. No other and further submissions are being made.

ANALYS