IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3218 of 2025 ========================================================== MAGANBHAI POPATBHAI SAPARA & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MS KINJAL VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 09/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parekh for the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit / allow the present petition, in the interest of justice; (B) Be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction & direct the respondents, herein, to Decide & Implement Pending Proposals sent by the Respondents by way their inter-se Communications Regarding Payment of Lump-sum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioners, In View of, G.R. Dt. 20.7.2017 At Ann. A about lump- sum Compensation to the dependent family of Class-III, and Class-IV employees of FIXED SALARY, who die p. 2 during the Contractual Period, accordingly, within prescribed time limit, forthwith, in the interest of justice; (C) Pending, admission and final disposal of the present petition this Hon Court may be pleased to grant the prayer in terms of Paragraph 15 (B), forthwith, in the interest of justice; (D) Any other and further relief/s may kindly be granted in the interest of justice; 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s son, Bharatbhai Maganbhai Sapara, was working on the post of Vidhya Sahayak and died during the course of his service on 27.01.2016 in a motor vehicle accident. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the Government scheme providing the benefit of lump-sum compensation to the dependent family members. Therefore, the petitioner made his first representation on 27.04.2018 seeking compassionate appointment and also prayed for monetary relief in the form of lump-sum compensation on account of the death of his son. However, the aforesaid application has remained undecided till date. Therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Parekh, the respondents may be directed to decide the representation. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter made another representation in the year 2020 and p. 3 that the petitioner is still ready and willing to make a fresh representation to the respondents, which may be directed to be decided by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to make a representation seeking lump-sum compensation to the respondents, more particularly to respondent No.3, who shall forward the same to respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 shall decide the representation that may be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 4. Once the representation is made to respondent No.3, the same shall be forwarded to respondent No.2, who shall consider and decide the same by taking into consideration the applicable Government Resolution regarding lump-sum compensation in cases relating to compassionate appointment, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. 5. If the petitioner is found eligible and entitled to receive the lump-sum compensation, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of p. 4 such decision. 6. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA