Gujarat High Court Allows Petition for Compassionate Appointment Despite Change in Policy - Application Must Be Considered Under Policy Existing at Time of Employee's Death. Pending Application for Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Rejected Based on Subsequent Change in Recruitment Policy.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 63
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Amratbhai Sursinh Khant, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking compassionate appointment after his father, who was serving as a peon in the office of respondent No. 1, died in harness on 15.09.2002. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.11.2002, but the respondents did not act on it for over three years and finally rejected it on 05.12.2005, citing a change in the State's recruitment policy effective from 16.03.2005, which required a minimum 10th pass qualification for Class IV posts, whereas the petitioner was only 9th pass. The petitioner again approached the respondents with an application dated 23.01.2007, leading to communications between the respondents, but no favorable decision was made. The legal issue was whether the petitioner's application, pending at the time of the policy change, should be considered under the old policy or the new policy. The petitioner argued that the application should be considered under the policy existing at the time of his father's death. The respondents contended that the new policy applied. The Court analyzed that the application was made before the policy change and the respondents had sat on it for years. The Court held that the application must be considered under the policy prevailing at the time of the death of the employee, i.e., 15.09.2002, and directed the respondents to reconsider the application within eight weeks. The petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Compassionate Appointment - Change in Policy - Pending Application - The petitioner's father died in harness on 15.09.2002, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.11.2002. The application was rejected on 05.12.2005 on the ground that the State had changed its recruitment policy w.e.f. 16.03.2005, requiring minimum 10th pass qualification, whereas the petitioner was only 9th pass. The Court held that the application, having been made prior to the change in policy, must be considered under the policy existing at the time of the death of the employee, and directed the respondents to reconsider the application in accordance with the policy prevailing on 15.09.2002. (Paras 5.1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, which was pending at the time of change in recruitment policy, should be considered under the old policy or the new policy?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy prevailing on the date of death of the employee, i.e., 15.09.2002, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

  • Compassionate appointment
  • Change in policy
  • Application pending at time of policy change
  • Right to be considered under old policy
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:15904

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7321 of 2015

2026-02-27

MAULIK J. SHELAT

2026:GUJHC:15904

MR MANISH S SHAH for the Petitioner, MS NIDHI VYAS, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents

Amratbhai Sursinh Khant

Deputy Executive Engineer & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking compassionate appointment.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment and recruit him in place of his father.

Filing Reason

Rejection of compassionate appointment application due to change in recruitment policy.

Previous Decisions

Application rejected on 05.12.2005 on ground of policy change requiring 10th pass; subsequent application dated 23.01.2007 not decided.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, pending at the time of change in recruitment policy, should be considered under the old policy or the new policy?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that his application was made prior to the policy change and should be considered under the policy existing at the time of his father's death. Respondents contended that the new policy applied and the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualification.

Ratio Decidendi

An application for compassionate appointment made prior to a change in recruitment policy must be considered under the policy existing at the time of the death of the employee, and not under the subsequent policy.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondent sat tight over the application for more than 3 years and finally rejected it on 05.12.2005, on the ground that as State has changed it’s the policy of recruitment w.e.f. 16.03.2005... The case of the petitioner was reviewed by the department concerned and having...

Procedural History

The petitioner's father died on 15.09.2002. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.11.2002. Application rejected on 05.12.2005. Petitioner again applied on 23.01.2007. No decision was taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition in 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Petition for Compassionate Appointment Despite Change in Policy - Application Must Be Considered Under Policy Existing at Time of Employee's Death. Pending Application for Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Rejected Based o...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Challenging Award Rejecting Salvor's Claims for Idling Charges in Salvage Contract Dispute. Court upholds arbitral tribunal's finding that salvor failed to prove breach of contract and damages, and tha...