Gujarat High Court
Dinesh Kanjibhai Rathava vs State Of Gujarat on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/02/2026
Pronounced On : 06/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 208 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
DINESH KANJIBHAI RATHAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. NIDHI VYAS, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
CAV JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. P.H.Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner as also Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondents - State and its authorities, at length.
[2] This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Articles 14 & 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the conditions for forfeiting the earlier services in the order dated 17.11.2016 and 21.11.2016 as well as resolution dated 16.6.2015 (Annexure-A) which provides for forfeiture of earlier services and not counting the seniority from initial date of appointment as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and Page 1 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined set aside the same to that extent.
(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the respondents have illegally wiped out the earlier services rendered by the petitioner as class-
III employee in light of the judgment of the Hon.ble Supreme Court and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the seniority of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment in class-III post and grant all consequential benefits.
(C) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the respondents have illegally put the petition of fixed salary basis and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to pay minimum pay scale with permissible allowances to the petitioner which is available to class-IV employee. (D) The Hon.ble Court be pleased to declare the resolution dated 16.6.2015 as bad in law qua the extend that provides fixed salary instead of minimum pay scale and hence be pleased to direct the respondents to grant similar benefits as granted by the Hon.ble Supreme Court in Brijesh Vipinchandra Shah's case.
(E) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to start paying regular salary to class- IV employees, to the petitioner forthwith. (F) Any other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice be granted."
FACTS OF THE CASE [3] The father of the petitioner was serving as a Beat Guard under respondent No.3 and while in service died in harness on 30.04.1994.
Upon the death of his father, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was accepted. Accordingly, by letter / order dated 15.04.1996, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk (Class-III) on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 vide order dated 01.07.1996.
[3.1] Further, as a condition of service, the petitioner was required to Page 2 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined pass the pre-service training examination within the prescribed chances.
Though the petitioner appeared in all available chances, he failed to clear the said examination.
[3.2] Apprehending termination, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8638 of 1999, wherein interim relief was granted. The said petition came to be disposed of on 04.02.2002, with an observation that if the petitioner made an application for absorption on a Class-IV post (where passing of pre-service examination was not required), the authority may consider the same sympathetically.
After disposal of the aforesaid petition, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated w.e.f. 11.09.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.04.2003 seeking absorption on a Class-IV post.
[3.3] In similar circumstances, another employee approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.25586 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed appointment on a Class-IV post, instead of Class-III post, and further held that seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of appointment. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, several similarly situated employees were granted appointment on Class-IV posts with continuity of service. On the similar line, this Court has also passed several orders Page 3 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined against the State.
[3.4] Pursuant thereto also, the Government issued a Resolution dated 16.06.2016, deciding to reinstate employees terminated for non-passing of pre-service training examination on Class-IV posts. However, the Resolution provided that the earlier service rendered would not be counted for any purpose and that such appointment would be treated as a fresh appointment. Moreover, such appointment of employee would be on fixed salary for 5 years as per government policy.
[3.5] In pursuance of the said Resolution, the respondents issued orders dated 17.11.2016 and 21.11.2016, appointing the petitioner on a Class-IV post on fixed salary, while wiping out his service rendered from 1996 to 2002 and not granted continuity of service without any back wages as was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[3.6] Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in forfeiting his earlier service and treating the appointment as a fresh one, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Resolution dated 16.06.2016 and consequential orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Hence, the present petition.
Page 4 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER [4] Mr. P.H.Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner has made the following submissions: -
[4.1] The Government Resolution dated 16.06.2015 issued by the respondent is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, insofar as it provides that the earlier services rendered by an employee shall not be considered for any purpose and that such employee shall be appointed on a fixed salary basis.
[4.2] The impugned order dated 17.11.2016 is also illegal and unjust, as the same has been passed on the basis of a Resolution which is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Brijesh Vipin Chandra Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2013 [2013 (2) SLJ 7], has categorically held that earlier services rendered by an employee on a Class-III post are required to be considered for the purpose of seniority.
The said binding principle has been completely ignored by the respondents while issuing the Resolution dated 16.06.2015 and the consequential orders dated 17.11.2016 and 21.11.2016, thereby acted arbitrarily.Page 5 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined [4.3] Further, though the respondents have taken note of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing the said Resolution, they have failed to implement the same in its true letter and spirit, particularly with regard to continuity of service, seniority and entitlement to regular pay scale, thereby rendering the action illegal.
[4.4] The respondents, without any justification, have completely wiped out the earlier services rendered by the petitioner along with his accrued seniority and have issued a fresh appointment order, which is directly contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove.
[4.5] The respondents are not justified in denying the petitioner the regular pay scale applicable to Class-IV employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, has held that even part-time and daily-wage employees are entitled to minimum pay scale. The case of the present petitioner stands on a much better footing than those considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the regular pay scale along with all consequential benefits available to Class-
IV employees.
Page 6 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined [4.6] The action of the respondents in not considering the seniority of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment and in denying him the regular pay scale of a Class-IV employee, under the guise of the Resolution dated 16.06.2015, amounts to a mala fide exercise of power and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[4.7] In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
Mohd. Ghani v. National Geophysical Research Institute, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 458;
[4.8] It is pointed out that the issue germane to the matter as regards appointment on fixed salary is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court, but he would bank upon the recently passed decision/order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.10.2025 in the case of Jitendrakumar Ashwinbhai Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat and others, being Special Civil Application No.14302 of 2025 and allied matters.
[4.9] Making the submissions, Mr. Pathak, learned advocate requests this Court to allow the present petition.Page 7 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS [5] Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has made the following submissions: -
[5.1] It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis as Clerk, Class-III in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Amreli, under respondent No.3, on 15.06.1996, and that his services came to be terminated vide letter dated 11.09.2002.
[5.2] At the relevant point of time, the petitioner himself executed an undertaking on oath, whereby he categorically agreed that for the period between 2002 and 2016, he would not claim any monetary benefits or continuity of service. The said undertaking forms part of the record and is annexed to the reply.
[5.3] The Government Resolution dated 16.06.2015 clearly provides that where Class-III employees are appointed to Class-IV posts, the period between their relieving from Class-III service and appointment to Class-
IV service shall not be considered for grant of any arrears. It is further stipulated therein that previous salary, leave, pension, or any other service benefits shall not be paid, and that such appointment shall be treated as a Page 8 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined fresh appointment to Class-IV service, subject to execution of an undertaking to that effect.
[5.4] The petitioner himself, by letter dated 30.07.2015, requested that benefits strictly in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.06.2015 be extended to him while appointing him as a Class-IV employee. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief contrary to the said Resolution.
[5.5] It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment but with a benevolent object to help the family in harness, such appointment is made under the policy of the Government by relaxing certain Rules. Since there was no policy of the State for granting appointment to Class-IV in the case of non-fulfillment of Class-III conditions at the relevant point of time, and there were many orders passed by the Hon'ble Court, in that background, the State Government issued the G.R. dated 16.06.2015. Thus, the impugned resolution is in consonance with the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The State Government has rightly exercised its power and the impugned policy is in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and this Court should not interfere with the policy matter of the State. The petitioner is on one side taking benefit of the policy and on the other Page 9 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined hand, seeking quashment of the very same policy without justifying his own conduct as this petition is barred by delay and laches.
[5.6] Since the petitioner has agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of undertaking while appointing him on Class-IV post, he is not entitled for any benefits like seniority and arrears.
[5.7] In support of her submissions, learned AGP has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i) State of Bihar v. Baliram Singh, reported in 2018 (14) SCALE 407;
(ii) State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 65.
[5.8] Making the above submissions, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP requests this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
[6] No other or further submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [7] Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of their pleadings and documents, the issues germane to the matter are twofold, which are as follows: -
(i) Whether Government Resolution dated 16.06.2015 in question is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable and violative Page 10 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it denies the benefits of continuity of service and not protected the seniority as treated the appointment of the employee concern as fresh appointment?
(ii) Whether the respondent is justified in appointing the petitioner on fixed salary for 5 years as his appointment is based upon compassionate ground?
ANALYSIS ISSUE NO.1 [8] There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground due to untimely death of his father serving as Beat Guard under respondent No.3, who died on 30.04.1994.
The petitioner was appointed on 15.04.1996 as Clerk, Class-III. Since the petitioner could not clear the requisite computer examination, he was dismissed from service on 11.09.2002. Prior thereto, petitioner had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.8368 of 1999 wherein this Court relegated the petitioner to respondent and directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner whereby petitioner can be absorbed in service as Class-IV. Such request though made by the petitioner but was not entertained by the respondent.
[8.1] It is also not in dispute between the parties that like petitioner, other similarly situated appointees were also dismissed from their Page 11 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined respective services by respondent, as they had not cleared the examination. One of such appointees approached this Court and matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court not interfered with the decision of the respondent terminating the services of such appointees but directed the respondent to appoint the appellant concerned on Class-IV post by granting continuity of service as well as protected the seniority.
[9] It is apt to recapitulate the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Vipin Chandra Shah (supra), which read thus:-
"8. We are of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondents is unnecessarily harsh. It must be remembered that the appellant was initially appointed on compassionate grounds as his father had died while he was in service. Compassionate appointment is made by relaxation of the normal service rules for providing immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased who dies in harness. It is unfortunate that the appellant was unable to pass the in-service examination so as to enable him to continue on a Class III post. But that ought not to result in depriving him of service altogether.
9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and direct the respondents to appoint the appellant on a Class IV post. The appointment of the appellant on a Class IV post shall be from the date he was initially appointed on Class III post. His seniority shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to any back-wages since he has not worked, on any of the posts, after the date of termination of his services."
(Emphasis Supplied) [9.1] As can be seen from the aforesaid order, it has been clearly directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that appointment of the appellant Page 12 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined concerned on Class-IV shall be from the date of his initial appointment on Class-III post. On the similar line, the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 16.09.2016 passed in LPA No.743 of 2016 also considered the case of other similarly situated appointees and passed similar direction to the State. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment/s and order/s passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, in number of cases, then a conscious decision was taken by the State to appoint such type of appointees on Class-IV post as their services were terminated on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, the aforesaid Resolution dated 16.06.2015 came to be issued.
[10] The petitioner vide his letter dated 30.07.2015, citing the aforesaid Resolution dated 16.06.2015, requested the respondent to appoint him on the post of Class-IV. Accordingly, respondent, vide order dated 21.11.2016, appointed the petitioner on Class-IV post. As per the terms of the appointment, petitioner is not entitled to receive any back wages from the date of his termination till reappointment on the post of Class-IV. As per the aforesaid Resolution, the appointment to the post of Class-IV is treated as fresh appointment. Further, as per aforesaid policy, the petitioner would get fixed salary for first 5 years, thereby, petitioner is not entitled to receive benefits of regular pay scale and other benefits Page 13 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined from date of his reappointment. The petitioner appears to have submitted undertaking confirming the aforesaid terms on 17.11.2016.
[10.1] Now, by way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid service condition so far as treating his appointment as fresh appointment to the post of Class-IV by not considering his previous service rendered on Class-III post, on the ground that it is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has also challenged that respondent has committed illegality by appointing him on a fixed salary for a period of five years as per government rule. The respondent - State has opposed both these stance of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that once petitioner agreed and accepted the appointment as per terms stipulated therein, without any demurrer and after submitting undertaking in this regard, later on, petitioner is not permitted to challenge it on any ground. It is also contended that for quite long period of time, petitioner was remained out of service as terminated on 11.09.2002 and reinstated in service on 21.11.2016, then not entitled to claim continuity of service and protection of his seniority. It is also contended that policy of the State cannot be challenged by the petitioner as it is not violative of fundamental right of petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not so similar with other Page 14 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined petitioners who approached Hon'ble Apex Court or this Court as the case may be.
[11] Before adverting to the issue germen to the matter, I would first like to observe that the State is well within its power to frame appropriate policy and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the policy matter / policy decision of the State. There is no cavil that scope of judicial review to interfere with policy matter framed by the State is very minimal. It is settled that when the policy of the State is not found to be either violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or any fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution infringed, this Court must not interfere with such policy of the State.
[11.1] At the same time, it is trite that every policy of the State must be judged on the touchstone of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, more particularly, Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The policy of the State must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair and unreasonable. If policy is either discriminatory, arbitrary, unequal, unreasonable or unfair, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court has power to interfere with such policy framed by the State.
[12] Keeping in mind the said factors, I would like to appreciate Page 15 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined the facts and analyze the submissions made by the respective learned advocates.
[12.1] This Court needs to first examine the aforesaid policy dated 16.06.2015, upon which, the State has appointed the petitioner to the post of Class-IV. A fair translation of the aforesaid G.R.dated 16.06.2015 reads thus:
"Regarding the absorption into Class-IV of employees who were appointed to Class-III positions under the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate grounds and who failed to pass the prescribed Post-Training Examination within the stipulated/grace attempts as per the service rules.
Government of Gujarat General Administration Department Resolution No: RHM-102015-348-K Secretariat, Gandhinagar Date: 16/06/2015 Read:
(1) General Administration Department Resolution No:
BHRT-2197-K dated 10-03-2000.
(2) General Administration Department Resolution No:
BHRT-1201-910(2)-K dated 07-09-2002.
(3) General Administration Department Resolution No:
BHRT-1201-910(3)-K dated 07-09-2002.
(4) General Administration Department Resolution No. BHRT-102004-385-K dated 15-06-2004.
(5) General Administration Department Resolution No:
BHRT-102004-385-K dated 30-09-2004.
(6) General Administration Department Resolution No:
RHM-102009-1651-K dated 05-07-2011.Page 16 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined (7) General Administration Department Circular No:
BHRT/102004/1003/K dated 09-02-2005.
Preamble:
A revised Scheme for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependent family members of Class-III and Class-IV employees who die during continued service was introduced by the State Government qua the General Administration Department Resolution dated 10-03-2000, read at Sr.No. (1) above, and amendments thereto were made vide the resolutions read at Sr.Nos. (2), (3), (4), and (5) above. However, subsequently, the said scheme of giving appointment on compassionate grounds was discontinued, and in its place, the State Government introduced and implemented a scheme for paying lump-sum financial assistance vide the resolution dated 05-07-2011, which is currently prevalent.
2. As per the previous scheme of giving appointment on compassionate grounds, in cases where employees appointed to Class-III failed to pass the Post-Training Examination within the prescribed/grace attempts as per the service rules, they were being terminated. Regarding this, a dependent applicant Shri B.V. Shah sought relief first before the Hon'ble High Court and later before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Special Leave to Appeal No. 25586/2010 was instituted in the case of Shri B.V. Shah Vs. Government of Gujarat, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, pursuant to which, the applicant preferred Civil Appeal No. 735/2013, wherein orders were given, vide the Judgment dated 18/01/2013, to the effect that Shri Shah was to be given appointment on a Class-IV post with effect from the date when he reported on the Class-III post.
Accordingly, he has been appointed on a Class-IV post as a "special case" on the condition that no arrears would be payable for the Class-IV position. Relying on the stated Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of the cases were instituted before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein, referring to the Judgment dated 18/01/2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court has pronounced a number of Judgments to give appointments in Class-IV as 'special cases' as per the principle laid therein and the State Government has issued orders to give appointments on compassionate grounds in Class-IV, as special cases, to the employees/candidates who could not pass the Post-Training Examination within the prescribed/graced attempts for Class-III posts.
The matter, of taking a policy decision regarding giving appointments, as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Class-IV instead of terminating such employees who were appointed to Class-III posts on compassionate grounds and have not passed the Post-Training/Departmental Examination as per rules, was under active consideration of the Government.
Page 17 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Resolution
3. It is hereby resolved with a humanitarian approach to ensure that a question as to livelihood does not arise for the families of employees who were appointed to Class-III posts under the Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds and could not pass the Post-Training Examination within the prescribed attempts as part of their service conditions. Instead of terminating them, they are to be re-appointed to Class-IV posts as a special case subject to the following conditions:
(1) In such cases, salary and allowances shall not be paid for the intervening period from the date of termination from the Class-III post until the appointment to the Class-IV post. Additionally, the previous service shall not be eligible for salary, leave, pension, or any other service-related purposes under any circumstances or in any form. Seniority in Class-
IV shall be considered afresh from the date of appointment to the Class-IV position. A written undertaking in this regard shall be obtained from the applicant.
(2) While issuing Class-IV Appointment Orders under this resolution, a Department shall issue self-explanatory orders covering all details of the case.
4. These orders shall apply equally to the dependent members appointed on compassionate grounds of deceased employees of State Government / Panchayat Services, as well as Grant-in-Aid institutions. Upon this order coming into force, the instructions at para 3(1) and (2) of the circular read above at Sr.No. (7) are hereby revoked.
5. These orders are issued pursuant to the approval dated 14-05- 2015 received from the Finance Department on the file of even number of this department.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.
Sd/- (illegible) (Devi Pandya) Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat. "
[12.2] It is discernible from the preamble of the aforesaid G.R. that it was issued due to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Page 18 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Court in number of cases. Thus, the aforesaid G.R. came to be issued by the State by placing reliance upon the said decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, unlike an independent policy framed by the State protecting the interest of compassionate appointees. It may be said that to avoid more number of such decisions in other similarly situated appointees, the State has consciously decided to accept said decisions in form of its policy, i.e. Resolution dated 16.06.2015. One can easily see that in the aforesaid Court's decisions, wherein it is clearly held that action of the State terminating the service of compassionate appointees served on Class-III post on the ground of not clearing requisite test, is arbitrary and accordingly, State was directed to appoint those persons on Class-IV post and their appointment on Class-IV shall be treated from the date they were initially appointed on Class-III post. Even their seniority was also protected by the Hon'ble Apex Court/this Court by stating that their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. The Courts have not granted back wages for the period they had not worked for.
[12.3] So far as the case of the Petitioner is concern, he was also initially appointed on compassionate ground, thereby, he is also similarly situated appointees who approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Page 19 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Court against their similar nature of termination like the termination of the present petitioner by the respondent - State. According to my view, they all would fall in one class, i.e., compassionate appointees. Once the petitioner is one of the members of a homogeneous class, the State must not act differently by giving him different treatment than received by the other members of the same class. It is true that due to intervention of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, State required to appoint them on Class-IV post by granting them continuity of service by protecting their seniority. To avoid similar orders in future, State decided to formulate a policy by way of issuing the aforesaid Resolution.
[12.4] It is well settled position of law that the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped, from others left out of the group; and the differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the policy. The classification made by the State in the present case by not granting continuity of service and also not protected seniority of the petitioner like other appointees is not based on an intelligible differentia, inasmuch as all such appointees would fall in one class but treated differently, accordingly deserve the similar treatment.
Furthermore, there is no reasonable nexus between the classification and Page 20 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined the object sought to be achieved.
[12.5] Since the State has consciously decided to offer appointment to compassionate appointees whose services were terminated from Class-
III post, State requires to have granted similar benefits as granted to other similarly situated persons, albeit due to order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court / this Court. Having not granted similar benefits to petitioner unlike others, State has acted in arbitrary manner and that part of policy is discriminatory in nature. There is no reason assigned by the State why it took departure as not granted relief as was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court / this Court to similarly situated compassionate appointees, even though the said policy/resolution is entirely rest upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court / this Court. At least no good reason worth name forthcoming in the reply filed by the State in the present case.
[12.6] At this stage, I would like to refer and to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Union of India Vs. International Trading Company reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437 wherein held thus:
"15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done Page 21 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non- arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary."
(Emphasis supplied) [12.7] As observed hereinabove and considering the ratio of said decision, if the policy is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unfair, then it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the aforesaid policy in question is apparently discriminatory by not giving similar treatment / relief as was given to Page 22 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined other similarly situated persons, albeit by the Courts, and no valid reasons assigned for doing so as there is no rational in such classification, in that view of the matter, the aforesaid policy can be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[13] So far as the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by Ms. Vyas, learned AGP is concerned, none of the decisions are helpful to the case of the respondent as not applicable to the facts germane to the present matter. In the case of Baliram Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically recorded that none of the original petitioners -
respondents before it, questioned the terms and conditions of appointment; rather not challenged the policy under which they have been appointed. Whereas in the present case, the petitioner herein has questioned both. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court had not called upon to decide legitimacy of the policy in the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not entertained the plea of the petitioners-respondents before it.
Likewise, in the case of Bihar Pensioners Samaj (supra), it is discernible that the policy questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court was not found to be either arbitrary or discriminatory, and having not found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then it has not interfered with the policy decision.
Page 23 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined [14] Once this Court finds that the aforesaid policy, insofar as it denies the benefits of continuity of service and not protected the seniority of the petitioner, is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, and unreasonable, thus, it is held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, irrespective of the terms of appointment or any undertaking given by the petitioner while accepting the appointment under the said policy, the same would not bind him, as the petitioner is well within his rights to challenge it before this Court, as the policy in question is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable, thus, violative of fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is trite that when the impugned action of the respondent -State is found to be violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner, the doctrine of estoppel and/or waiver would not come to the rescue of the State. [See - Basheshwar Nath v. Commr. Of Income-
tax, Delhi, (1959) Supp (1) SCR 528 : AIR 1959 SC 149].
[15] In view of the aforesaid, according to my view, respondent -
State is required to grant continuity of service to the petitioner when appointed to the post of Class-IV by treating it from the date he was initially appointed on Class-III post and also required to protect his seniority from the date of his initial appointment. Issue No.1 answered Page 24 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 [16] The petitioner was reappointed on the post of Class-IV on 21.11.2016, but for a period of first 5 years on a fixed salary as per the existing government policy. Accordingly, the petitioner was not granted any benefits of regular pay scale, bonus, LTC, leave encasement, etc. for said period.
[17] This issue germane to the matter is squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendrakumar Ashwinbhai Brahmbhatt (supra), wherein, considering the similar facts in the issue, after considering the previous case laws and Government Resolutions, it was held thus :
"6. It would appear that the petitioners before this Court, had been appointed on compassionate basis in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004, which prescribed the appointments on fixed pay on Ad-hoc basis for a period of 5 years and upon the petitioners having satisfactorily completed the period prescribed, the petitioners were to be absorbed in either Class III or the Class IV posts, as the case may be. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been wrongly appointed on fixed pay on fixed term basis and whereas it is in this context that the persons identically situated to the petitioners, had approached this Court by preferring the writ petitions referred to hereinabove. It would appear that this Court, vide judgment dated 14.03.2024 having relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, had allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to issue modified appointment orders to the petitioners, whereby the period from date of appointment of the petitioners would be treated as a regular pay- scale. This Court had further directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits, which the petitioners would be entitled to upon the change in the date of the appointment orders, including arrears of benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The respondents Page 25 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined were directed to complete the exercise within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.
7. It would appear that the State as well as some of the District Panchayats had preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of this Court vide Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 and allied matters and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench vide common oral order dated 11.07.2024 had inter alia modified the said decision to the extent that the arrears, which those petitioners would be entitled to, would be restricted to a period of three years prior to date of filing of the writ petitions. The Hon'ble Division Bench has further clarified that the Hon'ble Division Bench had not disturbed the decision with regard to conferment of the regular pay-scale from initial date of appointment etc. as ordered by this Court.
8. Considering such a situation, more particularly since there is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioners herein are identically situated to the petitioners of the group of petitions referred to hereinabove, the benefits as the petitioners of the above writ petitions had been conferred with, are required to be granted to the petitioners herein.
9. Having regard to the such a position, at the outset, this Court seeks to refer to the observations of this Court vide decision dated 14.03.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 10738 2020, paras 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"11.1. Considering the submissions, while it would appear that on substantive aspect, learned Coordinate Bench and Hon'ble Division Bench have passed orders in favour of the petitioners, yet it would appear that the State is seeking to contest the petitions before this Court mainly on two grounds i.e. on the ground of delay and on the ground that at the time when the applications for grant of compassionate appointment preferred by the present petitioners had been considered, a different policy of the State was in existence and, therefore, the State was well justified in coming to a conclusion of appointing the petitioners on fixed term basis.
11.2. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue is no more open for the respondent State to take up, more particularly in view of the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench in Sachin Ishwarlal Chavda dated 18.4.2022 expressly rejecting the contention of delay raised by the respondents and whereas it appears that the said decision had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 26 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined had also declined to interfere in a petition, whereby the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench had been challenged. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the decision dated 18.4.2022, more particularly whereby the learned Coordinate Bench had rejected the contention of the respondent State that all the petitions being grossly delayed, being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit :-
"10. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai Naik, who was denied appointment on compassionate ground as a result of the ceiling of income limit prevalent at the time of his application, approached this Court when his case for appointment was rejected. Considering the policy as per the GR dated 10.3.2000 and 7.9.2002, the Court set aside the stand of the State Government in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The relevant portion of the order dated 7.10.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No.1579 of 2002 reads as under: "4. At the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Government Resolution dated 7-9-2002 laying down that the Government Resolution dated10-3- 2000 doing away with the income limit in matters of compassionate appointment shall be given effect from 1-1-1996.
5. In view of the aforesaid resolution, it is clear that in cases where deceased expired on or after 1-1- 1996, the compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground of the income of the families exceeding the prescribed limit as no limit would now be applicable.
6. In view of the statement being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death of the father of the petitioner took place while holding office and on or after 1-1-1996 i.e. on 19- 6-1999, it is obvious that the present case will be governed by the Government Resolution dated 10-3-2000 read with the Government Resolution dated 7-9-2002."
11. Based on these directions, Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai Naik was appointed on compassionate ground by an order dated 23.7.1994 on fixed pay of Rs.2,500/-. That his appointment was on fixed pay similar to the onein case of the petitioners is evident Page 27 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined from the modified order issued by the State on 12.6.2019. Reading the order of 12.6.2019 would indicate that the State Government considering the spirit of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.1579 of 2002 dated 7.10.2002 modified the order appointing that petitioner in fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- and backing his appointment as one in the regular scale of pay from his initial date of appointment and not after completion of five years.
12. The facts on hand in the present cases would indicate that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.1579 of 2002. The petitioners in the cases as argued by Ms. Thakar who were appointed on 25.7.2004 and in the case of Ms. Harshal Pandya, the petitioner so far as SCA No.14953 of 2020 was appointed on 12.8.2004. Perusal of all these orders would indicate that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground on fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- as that of the petitioner of SCA No.1579 of 2002. It was on 12.7.2019 that petitioner Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai Naik for the benefit of being appointed on regular pay scale from his initial date of appointment and not on completion of five years and the order was so modified. It is based on these orders that the petitioners are promoted to approach this Court in the year 2019-2020 claiming similar benefits.
13. The objection of delay on the part of the respondents therefore that having accepted that appointments in 2004, the petitions are delayed, is an objection which is misconceived."
11.3. The decision of the learned Coordinate Bench had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide decision dated 5.9.2022 in LPA No.855 of 2022 and allied cases. A perusal of the said decision reveals that challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge was on the ground of the original petitioners having approached the Court after a substantial delay which, aspect according to the appellants, had not been appreciated by the learned Coordinate Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench having not countenanced the submissions of the appellant had rejected the LPA. Paragraphs No.3, 4, 5 and 11 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit :-
"3. The only ground raised and emphasis put on by Page 28 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined the appellant is delay and laches on the part of the respondent employee seeking similar reliefs, and that too, by relying upon the order dated
12.06.2019 passed by the Panchayat Department, State of Gujarat in connection with similarly situated employee, namely, Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak.
4. The facts arise from the record are that the respondent employee herein, who are the original petitioners namely (1) Sachin Ishwarlal Chavda in Special Civil Application No. 14642 of 2019, who had been given order of appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from 16.10.2004, (2) Prakashkumar Purshottamdas Mevada in Special Civil Application No. 14646 of 2019, who had been given order of appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from 15.10.2004, (3) Sanjaykumar Laxmanbhai Kalotara in Special Civil Application No. 14873 of 2019, who had been given order of appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from 14.10.2004, (4) Dineshkumar Gokaldas Parekh in Special Civil Application No. 14899 of 2019, who had been given order of appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from 01.11.2004, (5) Vijaykumar Kantibhai Patel in Special Civil Application No.6138 of 2020, who had been given order of appointment on 18.08.2004 giving effect of appointment from 16.11.2004, (6) Harjindersinh Ramsinh Rathod in Special Civil Application No. 6139 of 2020, who had been given order of appointment on 11.11.2005 giving effect of appointment from 05.12.2005,(7) Bharatbhai Natvarbhai Darji in Special Civil Application No. 6142 of 2020, who had been given order of appointment on 15.02.2005 giving effect of appointment from 09.05.2005 and (8) Ajitsinh Badesinh Solanki in Special Civil Application No. 6140 of 2020, who had been given order of appointment on 19.04.2005 giving effect of appointment from 24.05.2005 were appointed on fixed pay. However, considering the policy applicable to the service conditions on compassionate grounds, the original petitioners requested that they should have been appointed on regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment.
5. Since the case of the petitioners was not considered for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointments and the case of another Page 29 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined employee, namely, Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak was considered giving effect of regular pay scale from the date of his initial appointment, writ petitions were filed in the year 2019 by the respondent employees herein.
6 to 10 xxx
11. As far as delay is concerned, it is true that the petitioners have approached after a long period; however, if the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the concerned authority is perused, the said Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, who was appointed on compassionate ground on 23.07.2003 and was given all the benefits subsequent to petition filed by him before this Court in the year 2017, and thus, the State Government itself has condoned the delay with regard to claim put forward by said Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, and therefore, all the respondent employees in the appeals herein are also required to be given similar treatment. Learned Single Judge has also kept in mind for filing the petition at belated stage and has observed accordingly. Learned Single Judge has not granted any arrears from their initial date of appointment and has granted the benefits from 01.01.2010, and therefore, no interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, present appeals stand dismissed."
11.4. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would appear that the present petitioners being identically situated to the petitioners in case of Special Civil Application No.14642 of 2019 and allied matters, the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench would apply with all force in the facts of the present petitions also.
11.5. In so far as the submissions on behalf of the respondent State that a different policy being in existence on the date when the applications were considered, also does not require any consideration, more particularly since in LPA No.287 of 2023 vide decision dated 3.10.2023, the Hon'ble Division Bench had dealt with the said controversy and whereas in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench being binding on this Court, the submissions by the State on the said count would not merit any consideration.
Paragraphs 4.2, 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the decision dated 3.10.2023 are quoted herein below for benefit :-
"4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the Page 30 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined respondent would submit that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashish Awasthi (supra) in which it is held that for the appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
5. On a closer look of the facts and attendant aspects in this case, the controversy could be answered irrespective of whether the policy at the time of application or the policy prevalent at the time of considering the application, would apply. There is no need to weigh the said principles. There is no gainsaying that when the petitioners became eligible and they applied for compassionate appointment, the specific scheme or compassionate appointment was as per the Resolution dated 10.3.2000. The Resolution dated 15.6.2004 and other Resolutions reflected only general policy, whereby the government authorities used to offer fixed term appointment on fixed salary basis. Somehow in case of the petitioners the said policy was applied and the appointments to the petitioners were given of such kind and nature, treating them as compassionate appointment.
5.1 The policy reflected in Resolution dated 10.03.2000, in terms provided that the eligible kith and kin of the deceased employee would be provided appointment on compassionate ground. This appointment was contemplated to be substantive appointment and not a temporary one. It was a benefit to be conferred on permanent basis.
5.2 Learned Single judge misdirected himself in making calling observations regarding the scheme of Resolution dated 10.03.2000, reproducing paragraph 15, "The claim of the petitioners is for appointment as per the prevailing policy under Government Resolution dated 10-3-2000. A perusal of the aforesaid Government Resolution indicates that it was for the purpose of providing benefit to the dependents of employees of Class-3 and Class-4 cadre upon his expiry while in service and amendment made therein. However, the entire Government Resolution does not mention anything with regards to making the appointment on a regular post on a regular pay scale and therefore in absence of any specific provision under the Resolution for making appointment against a pay Page 31 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined scale, the Court will not presume such fact to be a policy of the State Government."
5.3 Appointing on compassionate basis is always pursuant to a particular specific policy. That policy in the case of the petitioners was one reflected in Resolution dated 10.3.2000. Furthermore, when a person is appointed on compassionate basis, the appointment is against specific post. A compassionate appointment in that way is substantive appointment under the four corners of the policy. The petitioners' case was required to be governed accordingly."
11.6. A perusal of the above paragraphs would clearly indicate that the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the considered opinion that the issue could be answered irrespective of the fact of the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employees, or the policy prevalent at the time of the applications being considered, being the relevant policy, being the contention of the State. It would appear that the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the clear opinion that the petitioners were entitled to compassionate appointment based upon the Resolution dated 10.3.2000 and whereas insofar as the later Resolution dated 15.6.2004 was concerned, the same was a general policy of the State and whereas it was held that while the appointment of the petitioners on fixed term for fixed salary may have been as per the policy dated 15.6.2004, but their appointment on compassionate was on the basis of Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000.
11.7. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the issues raised by the State having already been addressed by learned Coordinate Benches as well as Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, unless the said view of the learned Coordinate Bench or of the Division are modified, the same would be binding on this Court, more particularly since on factual scenario there is no difference between the employees in the cases before the learned Coordinate Benches as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench and the present petitioners and whereas the issue being raised by the petitioners is also absolutely identical to the issue decided. In view of the above, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned AGP would not advance the cause of the State.
11.8. At this stage, at the request of learned AGP, since it is pointed out that in some cases, the petitioners have already approached this Court at the time of their appointment, challenging their fixed term appointments, which petitions Page 32 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined had not been entertained at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that such persons may have again approached this Court, seeking reliefs based upon the reliefs granted to similarly situated persons and whereas it is submitted that such persons would not be entitled to such reliefs, since the original order whereby this petition was rejected has become final between the parties. It is submitted that since the petitioners, who ought to have been aggrieved by the said order, have chosen not to challenge the same at the relevant point of time, therefore, the said decision would be binding on such petitioners. To allay such apprehension of any employee coming before this Court with a second round of petition, learned Advocates for the petitioners have inter alia supplied details of each of the petitioners, more particularly whereby the learned Advocates have specifically stated, under instructions, that the present petitions, which are being disposed of by this Court vide the present judgement is the first round of petitions preferred by the petitioners before this Court for the very cause of action. Since the present petitions involve deciding a group of petitions, that while the statements supplied by the learned Advocates are accepted and taken on record, yet at the same time, liberty is reserved in favour of the State or the concerned competent authorities to approach this Court for modification of this order, in case it is found at a later stage that any of the petitioners has already approached this Court for the very self same reliefs and the same has already been rejected by this Court.
11.9. Having regard to the above discussion, all the petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to issue modified appointment orders to the petitioners, whereby the period from the date of appointment of the petitioners would be treated as on regular pay scale. The consequential benefits, which the petitioners would be entitled to upon such placement, including benefit of arrears, etc shall be given to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2020. The respondent shall complete the above exercise and disburse the arrears within four months from the date of receipt of this order."
10. Furthermore, the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 dated 11.07.2024 is also required to be referred to. Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit :
"14. The employees before us have contended that they are entitled to arrears from their initial date of appointment and not from 01.01.2020, whereas the State has prayed for restricting it for three years.
15. In our considered opinion, the date 01.01.2020 cannot be made applicable in all the cases uniformly in wake of the Page 33 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined fact that the date of appointment of each of the employees and date of filing of the writ petitions is also different.
16. We have heard on this issue. Before we may pass final orders, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra). While dealing with the issue of delay and latches caused in filing the writ petitions challenging termination orders, the Apex Court has held thus:
"10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone."
17. Thereafter, in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), where the issue pertains to the claim of pension, the Apex Court has held thus:
"5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be Page 34 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
18. The aforementioned both the judgements are considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, JT 2022 (5) S.C. 470. It is held thus:
"12. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the delay of 16 years in approaching the courts affected the consequential claim for arrears and thus, this Court set aside the direction to pay arrears for 16 years with interest. The Court restricted "the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser". Further, the grant of interest on arrears was also denied.
13. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India.,(2016) 13 SCC 797 14 In the facts of the present case, it is accepted that the respondent- Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court of Gujarat to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade payscale of the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000-8,000/- in the present case. As noted above, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the appellants the said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from 31st July 2018. The Division Bench should not have taken the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) which has been followed in several other decisions. That apart, the date of the decision of the Single Judge is a fortuitous circumstance. Only the date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or limitation. The appellants would, in consonance with the case law referred to above, be Page 35 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing of the Writ Petition."
19. The Apex Court has held that the claim which is related to service benefits, one of the exceptions to the said rule of delay and laches relating to a continuing wrong. It is held that where a service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is exception to the exception. Ultimately, it is held that the High Courts will restrict consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The Supreme Court in case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) has held that the High Court should not have taken the date of decision / judgement of the learned Single Judge for grant of benefits in view of the decision and ration in Tarsem Singh (supra), and further it is clarified that "only the date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and latches or limitation, and the arrears are to be confined for three years before the date of filing of the writ petition.".
20. Hence, the date of filing of the respective writ petitions becomes very relevant while restricting the arrears for three years. In the present group of appeals, the writ petitions have been filed after considerable delay and hence, the grant of actual arrears to such writ petitioners is governed as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision. The arrears are required to be restricted to the period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of each of the respective petitions. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lekh Ram (supra) will not apply to the present facts, since the issue with regard to delay in filing the writ petitions by the employee was neither raised nor examined.
21. These directions will only be confined to those employees, who have belatedly filed writ petitions beyond three years, questioning the action of the State authorities in conferring the regular pay-scale belatedly, and not from their initial date of appointment.
22. Hence, the directions issued by the learned Single Judges in the respective writ petitions is altered and all the employees shall be entitled to the actual arrears from a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the respective writ petitions. It is clarified that since we have not disturbed the decision with regard to the conferment of the regular pay-
Page 36 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined scale from the initial date of appointment, the pay fixation and other benefits to all the employees shall counted notionally for the intervening period."
(Emphasis Supplied) [18] In view of the aforesaid position of law and binding decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, as referred by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that respondent - State has committed gross illegality by appointing petitioner on a fixed salary for a period of 5 years; rather the petitioner is required to be appointed on the post of Class-IV on regular pay scale as prescribed for that post and prevailing at the time of his reappointment, i.e., on 21.11.2026.
[19] So far as the arguments canvassed by the learned AGP for this issue is concerned, almost all the arguments raised before me have been dealt with by the Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Jitendrakumar Ashwinbhai Brahmbhatt (supra) including of delay/laches. Issue No.2 answered accordingly.
Conclusion [20] In view of the foregoing observations, discussions and reasons, it is hereby held that the aforesaid policy/resolution dated 16.06.2015 issued by the respondent - State is held to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable and thus, it is violative of Page 37 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Article 14 of the Constitution of India, insofar as not granting the benefits of continuity of service notionally with protection of seniority to the employees concern - compassionate appointees, which were granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
[20.1] Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to issue a modified appointment order to the petitioner for the Class-IV post, thereby granting him continuity of service notionally and protection of seniority from the date of his initial appointment to the Class-III post, on or before 31st March, 2026. Nonetheless, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any back wages from the date of his termination till his reappointment for the Class-IV post.
[20.2] The petitioner is entitled to receive regular pay scale on his appointment to the post of Class-IV on 21.11.2016 with all consequential benefits. Consequently, the difference of arrears of salary shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner by the respondent, on or before 30 th April, 2026.
[20.3] It goes without saying that consequential benefits would include all benefits as would have been available to the petitioner as if the petitioner was appointed on a regular pay scale on the date of his Page 38 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/208/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined reappointment and would include, but not be restricted to fixing appropriate seniority, fixation of pay and opening of GPF account (if applicable) etc. [20.4] It is hereby clarified that the petitioner will be treated as being appointed on the regular pay scale from the date of his initial appointment whereas period between 11.09.2002 and 21.11.2016, shall be treated as notional for all purposes.
[20.5] The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated time period, as aforesaid.
[21] In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 39 of 39 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:12 IST 2026