In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a landmark judgement was passed regarding compassionate appointments. The case involved a dispute between the State Government and the petitioners seeking regular appointments. The court’s decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the rights of employees in such matters.
Facts
- Petitioner relied on Government Resolution dated 7-9-2002
- The GR stated that the GR dated 10-3-2000, removing income limit in compassionate appointments, to be effective from 1-1-1996
- Court set aside the State Government’s stand of not considering petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds
Arguments
- The petitioners are seeking the benefit of being appointed on a substantive/regular basis from their date of appointment and all benefits accruing from such a direction.
- The issue of delay in challenging the fixed pay appointment and seeking regular appointment benefits is raised by the State’s AGP, arguing against granting the petitioners’ requests.
- The petitioners refer to previous court decisions where similar petitions were allowed, granting regular appointments from the initial date, with arrears to be given from a specific date.
- There is a contention regarding the policy prevailing at the time of appointment consideration, with the petitioners asserting entitlement to regular appointment benefits based on the policy in place during their applications.
- Arguments are made regarding the finality of previous court decisions, with the petitioners urging the court to follow the precedents that favored the petitioners, as confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.
- The State AGP counters by pointing to a Supreme Court decision that highlights considering the policy at the time of the deceased employee’s demise for compassionate appointments, not subsequent policies.
- Both sides present similar arguments based on past court decisions, and the court considers reproducing specific paragraphs from a previous decision to address the identical nature of the submissions.
- The delay in filing the petitions and the policy decisions of the State government at different points in time are central issues in the arguments presented by both parties.
- The issue is no longer open for the respondent State to raise, based on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Sachin Ishwarlal Chavda dated 18.4.2022.
- The Coordinate Bench rejected the respondent State’s contention of delay in the petitions.
- The decision of the Coordinate Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Court.
- The Supreme Court declined to interfere in a petition challenging the decision of the Division Bench.
Analysis
- The Hon’ble Division Bench and Coordinate Bench passed orders in favor of the petitioners on substantive aspects.
- The State’s contention on delay and different policy at the time of application were rejected by the courts.
- The benefits granted were from 01.01.2010, without arrears, as per the judgement.
- The delay in approaching the court was considered but not a barrier to granting relief.
- Compassionate appointments were substantive appointments under the 10.3.2000 policy.
- The resolution dated 15.6.2004 reflected a general policy, not specific to compassionate appointments.
- The case of the present petitioners aligns with previous cases where relief was granted based on the 10.3.2000 policy.
- The specific post for appointment on compassionate basis was emphasized in the analysis.
- The modification to regular pay scale for an employee in 2019 set a precedent for the current petitioners.
- The appointments on fixed pay of the petitioners were in line with the 10.3.2000 policy for compassionate appointments.
- The present petitioner is identically situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10738/2020 and allied matters.
- The relief granted in favor of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.10738/2020 should be granted to the present petitioner as well.
- The respondents are directed to issue a modified appointment order to the petitioner, treating the period from the date of appointment as on the regular pay scale.
- Consequential benefits including arrears should be provided to the petitioner from January 2020.
- Some petitioners had previously approached the court challenging their fixed-term appointments, which were not entertained at that time.
Decision
- The present petition has been allowed.
- The respondents are directed to complete a specific exercise and disburse arrears.
- The arrears must be disbursed within four months from the date of this order.
Case Title: VIVEK NARENDRABHAI THAKER Vs. STATES OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/7554/2024
