Compassionate appointment is a concession intended to provide immediate financial relief to families in penury. A significant delay in seeking such appointment, coupled with the refusal of offered financial compensation, indicates a lack of immediate financial distress, thereby disqualifying the applicant from the benefit.

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as also Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate for respondent No.3, at length.

[2] The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the petitioner is entitled for the appointment on the compassionate ground and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner forthwith;

And in alternatively Be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the lump-sum compensation as per the latest Government Resolution (enhancing the amount of compensation) to the petitioner with interest till disbursement of the amount;

B) Be pleased to award exemplary cost from the respondents

C) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :-

[3] Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner died in harness during his service on 21.07.2008 and petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 18.09.2008, which was remained pending till filing of this petition. The impugned action of not deciding the application of petitioner is ex facie, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

[3.1] Ms. Vyas, learned advocate would further submit that subsequent to the application of compassionate appointment, even though policy of the State is changed later in point of time, whereby it decides to grant lump-sum compensation instead of compassionate appointment, then it was incumbent upon the respondent – authority to pay lump-sum compensation immediately. It is submitted that the respondent has not offered the compensation within reasonable time, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation with interest.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT – STATE.

[4] Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP has vehemently opposed this petition, contending inter alia, that petitioner is not entitled to get any compassionate appointment. It is submitted that this petition suffers from delay and latches as the application seeking compassionate appointment, was filed in the year 2008 and petitioner approached this Court in the year 2017.

[4.1] Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would submit that as a matter of fact, on getting requisite information from the District Education Officer concerned, the competent Authority of Education Department of the State has sanctioned the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the family of the deceased employee. It is submitted that a cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- was given to the mother of the petitioner i.e. widow of the deceased employee, who refused to accept it then vide letter dated 19.06.2018 of District Education Officer, Nadiad, it was sent to the school concerned to deposit in her account.

[4.2] Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would further submit that the reason of the return of the cheque by the family of the deceased employee, is that petitioner is only interested to get job instead of compensation. It is submitted that as per the change in the policy, preciously on 05.07.2011, the State has decided to grant only lump-sum compensation to the family of the decea