C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16251 of 2017 ========================================================== AMITABEN KAMLESHKUMAR SHARMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS JK HINGORANI(2491) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. DEVANSHIBA RANA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 28/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 2. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Police Constable, passed away on 08.12.2009, while in service. The petitioner did make an application for being appointed on compassionate grounds but the same was rejected on 23.11.2010 on the ground that the petitioner had not cleared her 10th standard examination at the time of making of the application for compassionate appointment. Page 1 of 10 C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 3. It is not in dispute that thereafter, the petitioner, who was a widow with two children and was aged 27 years, gathered the courage to take up the 10th standard examination afresh with the fond hope to secure a job so as to be able to take care of her two children and herself, having lost their breadwinner. To her fortune she successfully passed the 10th standard examination in the month of June, 2011 i.e., about one and a half years after the death of her husband. 4. It is to be noticed here that the petitioner despite, being a widow and despite being aged about 27 years with the burden of two children to take care of, had the courage to take up the 10th standard examination solely with the intention of securing an appointment on compassionate grounds. This task undertaken by the petitioner only exhibits her fortitude and her desperation to secure a Jon for the sake of her two children and herself. 5. Though the petitioner was fortunate to have cleared her 10th standard examination, the Department did not recognize the hard work that she had put in while being a C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 widow with two children and appearing in 10th standard examination and it proceeded to reject the application once again on the ground that she had applied beyond the period of 6 months and she did not possess the requisite qualification as on the date of the death of her husband. 6. Being aggrieved by this rejection the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that when the State Government rejected the application for compassionate appointment on the second occasion i.e. in the month of October, 2011, the Government had in fact passed a resolution on 05.07.2011 bringing in the concept of payment of a lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. She submits that the government ought to have at least applied this resolution and ought to have paid the petitioner the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. She highlighted the fact that the objective of this Government Resolution (for short ‘GR’) was to ensure that an employee who dies while in service does not leave his family in lurch and the State C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 steps in and provides for payment of at least some financial compensation and the refusal of the respondents to act in a manner to fulfill this objective was immoral and unethical, apart from being illegal. 8. Learned AGP on the other hand submits that the entitlement of an applicant to seek for an appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right but is only based on the relevant policy in force. She submitted that as on the date of death of her husband, the policy required that the petitioner had passed her 10th standard examination and since she did not possess that qualification, the government had rightly rejected her claim. She submitted that the second application was considered only because an application was made by the petitioner and therefore, no legal right would flow to the petitioner by virtue of such consideration. She also submitted that the claim for financial compensation cannot be sustained since the claim under the then policy prevailing in 2009 had already been rejected and the GR dated 05.07.2011 categorically stated that, if a claim had already been rejected the same could not be revived under C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 the GR dated 05.07.2011. 9. In the light of the above, the only point that arises for consideration in this case, is as to whether the State government was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment or at least for payment of financial compensation, at least, in the light of the GR dated 05.07.2011. 10. As already narrated above, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on her husband's death in 2009 was rejected by applying the policy that was in force in 2009 i.e., the requirement of possessing a 10th standard qualification. 11. The petitioner, who was aged about 26 years as of December 2009 when she lost her husband, and had two children to take care of, decided to embark upon the task of clearing her 10th standard examination given her desperate situation with the hope of securing a job to maintain her family. The plight of a widow with two young children to take care of after loosing her husband is rather C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 apparent and the fact that she decided to pass the 10th standard exams to secure a job and undo the prospect of a bleak future of herself and her children is something which should be admitted and respected. The fact that she was able to pass the 10th standard examination despite having two children to take care of and having lost her husband is by itself a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately, the magnitude of her success was not to be respected by the State. 12. The petitioner having passed the said examination, was of the view that she became entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. It cannot be in doubt that had the petitioner possessed the very same qualification in December 2009 would have definitely entitled her to an appointment. However, the procurement of this educational qualification a year later sill did not result in any benefit to her. 13. It is to be borne in mind that had the petitioner passed her examination immediately after the death of her husband in December 2009 and within six months C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 therefore i.e., before June 2010, her claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds could not be in dispute. It is also forthcoming from the records that the petitioner's husband passed away on 08.12.2009, it is apparently obvious that she could not take up the examinations in the preceding four months i.e. in March, 2010 and clear the same given the fact that she had lost her husband in December 2009. The fact that the petitioner took the very next opportunity and cleared her examination in March, 2011 was by itself adequate to have prompted the government to consider her case for being appointed on compassionate grounds. However, unfortunately, the State took a rather narrow view of the matter and refused to be flexible in the matter of granting appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. Though, technically, the State Government can justify this decision by literally applying its policy prevailing in 2009, nevertheless, it will have to be borne in mind that by the time the petitioner had cleared her examination and by the time the State Government had rejected this claim in the month of October, 2011, the State C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 had indeed modified its earlier policy and had held that it would pay financial compensation in lieu of appointing the kit and kin of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. Given the fact, that the intent of the State and its policy was to help a family of its employee who had died while in service, the State ought to have viewed the matter in a holistic manner and ensured that the objective of its stated policy was fulfilled. 15. In my view having regard the peculiar facts of this case i.e. a widow who was at the age of 27 years, with two children in tow, took up the requisite exams and cleared the same in the immediate aftermath of her husband's death, the petitioner has established that she is entitled for at least payment of the financial compensation prescribed under the GR dated 05.07.2011. 16. It is to be stated here that the petitioner did make an application for the second time after she cleared her exams in March. 2011 and this claim was rejected only in October, 2011, by which time the GR dated 05.07.2011 had come into force. In my view, having regard to the fact C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 that the petitioner, a widow who was aged 27 years and had two children, and had yet cleared her SSC examinations only with the view to secure an employment, the Government would be obliged to bring her case within the purview of the GR dated 05.07.2011 and pay her a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- since her husband died after rendering a long service and had less than 10 years of service left. 17. The argument of the learned AGP that the rejection of the petitioner's application in year 2010, having not been challenged, the same had become final and therefore, the petitioner had lost all her rights to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. She also sought to highlight the fact that the second rejection was made in the year 2011 and the petition was filed nearly 5 years thereafter in 2016 and on this score also the petition is liable to be rejected. 18. It is to be stated here that the State Government notwithstanding its rejection in the year 2010 nevertheless considered the claim of the petitioner on its merits when the petitioner made a second application in the year 2011. The reasoning given by the State in the second C/SCA/16251/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 endorsement is on the basis of a consideration of the petitioner's claim on merits. It is, therefore, clear that the non-laying of a challenge to the first rejection would be of no consequence since the State Government did entertain a claim of the petitioner on the second occasion and rejected it on merits. Furthermore, in a case of this nature, where a 27 year old widow with two children had successfully taken up and cleared her 10th standard examination in order to secure a job on compassionate grounds, the State should not take up pleas which would destroy its very objective of ensuring an employee’s family is not left in the lurch due to the death of the employee while in service. These arguments are therefore rejected. 19. Consequently, writ petition is disposed of directing the State Government to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the GR dated 05.07.2011 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute. (NSSG,J) Mehul Desai Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MEHULKUMAR BHIMABHAI DESAI(HCD0075), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2025 15:20:50