Holding

The appeal is allowed, quashing the appellate decree and restoring the trial court's dismissal because the plaintiff was not eligible for compassionate appointment under the applicable resolution and was not in financial distress.

Summary

The plaintiff, Sujatha Chandrasekhar Pillai, sought a compassionate appointment after her mother, a staff nurse, died in service while Sujatha was a minor. The trial court dismissed her suit, holding she was maintained by her father (a government employee) and family pension, and that the applicable Gujarat Government Resolution limited compassionate appointments to widows/widowers and did not cover her. The first appellate court reversed this decision, granting her appointment, but the State appealed. The High Court examined the latest government resolution, the plaintiff's financial condition, and the legal criteria for compassionate appointments, concluding that the plaintiff was not in financial distress and did not fall within the definition of a dependent eligible for such appointment. Consequently, the appellate decree was quashed and the trial court's dismissal restored. The court did not address the plaintiff's claim for monetary compensation.

Issues considered

Whether, under the latest Gujarat Government Resolution, the plaintiff is entitled to a compassionate appointment.
Whether a minor dependent of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment after attaining majority.
Whether the lower appellate court's judgment conforms with the provisions of the latest Government Resolution governing compassionate appointments.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100, s. 96

Subjects

compassionate appointmentminor dependentgovernment resolutionfinancial distresspublic employmentCode of Civil ProcedureSection 100Section 96Gujarat

Judgment

C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

Reserved On : 07/01/2026
Pronounced On : 21/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 121 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

=====================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
SUJATHA CHANDRASEKHAR PILLAI
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS. HEMALI D. SONI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VISHWAS S DAVE(5861) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has
been admitted by the coordinate Bench on 06.07.2010,
formulating following substantial question of law:-

“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
and the latest Government Resolution passed by the State of
Gujarat in respect of making appointment on compassionate
grounds, the respondent plaintiff is entitled to appointment
on compassionate appointment?

Page 1 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

(ii) Whether a dependent of a government employee who
is minor at the time of the death of such government
employee is entitled to the benefit of government
employment on compassionate ground after obtaining age of
majority even after lapse of number of years and does there
exist any compassionate ground for appointment of such
minor on his attaining majority and is she entailed to the
benefit of the provisions contained in the G.R. Applicable to
such case?

(iii) Whether the judgement and decree passed by the
lower appellate court is in consonance with the provisions
contained in the latest G.R. which regulate such
appointment?”

2. Challenge by way of this appeal is made to the
judgment and decree dated 28.01.2005 delivered by the 3 rd Extra
Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of
2002, whereby in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 96 of ‘the
Code’, the learned Extra Assistant Judge reversed the judgment
and decree dated 23.04.2002 passed by the 4 th Joint Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 485 of
2000, whereby the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. By allowing the
appeal, the appellate Court decreed the suit and directed that
within 3 months from the date of the judgment, the plaintiff be
appointed on the service on compassionate ground, pursuant to
the plaintiff’s application dated 21.07.1999.

3. For convenience and brevity, parties are referred to
as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

4. The factual matrix, which are essential to decide the
Second Appeal are as under:-

Page 2 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

4.1 That the plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Nani Kutti T., was
working as a staff nurse at Civil Hospital, Junagadh. During her
employment, she died on 04.04.1987. At that time, the plaintiff
was a minor. The plaintiff, having attained the age of majority,
applied for compassionate appointment on 21.07.1999.

4.2 That the said application was not accepted by the
authority and thereafter, plaintiff had filed the suit being Regular
Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000 claiming compassionate appointment.

4.3 That the learned trial Court, vide judgment and
decree dated 23.04.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on
the ground that the plaintiff was taken care of by her father, who
was in Government service and therefore, even for the fact that
the plaintiff's father remarried cannot relieve him of his
responsibility and even when the plaintiff was obtaining the
family pension of the deceased, she was not in harness, and
need of service to survive and maintain herself.

4.4 That being aggrieved, plaintiff preferred the first
appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2002, whereby the
3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh reversed the judgment and
decree dated 23.04.2002 passed by the 4 th Joint Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000
and directed the plaintiff be appointed on the service on
compassionate ground.

4.5 That being aggrieved, the appellant is before this
Court by way of this Second Appeal.

Page 3 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

5. Heard learned AGP Ms. Hemali D. Soni and learned
advocate Mr. Vishwas S. Dave for the original plaintiff.

5.1 In a short submission, learned AGP Ms. Hemali D.
Soni submitted that the learned appellate Court has committed
serious mistake by allowing the appeal.

5.2 She would further submit that the plaintiff claimed
the compassionate appointment on the ground that her mother -
Late Smt. Nanikutty T. was serving as Staff Nurse in the Civil
Hospital, Junagadh, who was expired on 04.04.1987 during the
service. She would submit that, however, at the time of the death
of the mother of the plaintiff, her father was already in
Government service. Her father - Chandrasekhar V. Narayan
Pillai was serving as a Driver in the Central Government.
Therefore, very object of compassionate appointment, that too, to
save the family from the harness, is not attracted in the matter.
Yet the learned appellate Court, without referring to the very
foundational principle, passed the order of compassionate
appointment, which is otherwise an exception and not the right
of the party.

5.3 She would further submit that, even the plaintiff was
obtaining the family pension of the deceased and she was living
with her father, and looking to these aspects, she would submit
that the learned appellate Court has committed serious error in
decreeing the appeal, on belief that, plaintiff was in need of
service to save herself from facing penury.

Page 4 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

5.4 She would further submit that the learned appellate
Court has not referred the latest Government Resolution, which
sets the guideline and policy in regards to the appointment made
under the Principle of Compassionate Appointment, which was
elaborately discussed by the learned trial Court while dismissing
the suit of the plaintiff.

5.5 In the aforesaid argument, learned AGP Ms. Hemali
D. Soni submitted to allow this appeal and to quash and set
aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate
Court and to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial Court.

6. As against the aforesaid submission, learned
advocate Mr. Vishwas S. Dave for the original plaintiff submitted
that, father of the plaintiff immediately on death of his wife, i.e.
mother of the plaintiff, contracted a second marriage, which
forced the plaintiff to live separately and survive on the family
pension of the mother. The family pension cannot be considered
as an income criteria. Plaintiff was minor at the time of her
mother’s death, and therefore, as soon as she attained the age of
majority, she applied for the job on the compassionate ground.

6.1 He would further submit that, looking to these
factual aspects, which are undeniable, it cannot be denied that
the plaintiff was in harness and she was in requirement of the
job to survive. Therefore, the learned appellate Court rightly
treated the issue of compassionate appointment and passed the
decree, which is not required to be interfered with in this Second
Appeal.

Page 5 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

7. In reply, the learned AGP would submit that, the
plaintiff has made a submission on 03.12.2025 to the Medical
Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Junagadh that she has already
joined the Government service as a Teacher in the year 2016, so
she is not pressing for her claim for compassionate appointment,
but she is seeking some monetary compensation to be granted to
her, with interest. Looking to this aspect, she would submit that
this appeal deserves consideration, more particularly when the
plaintiff is not requiring the compassionate appointment as she
has already obtained the Government service as a Teacher and
serving since 2016.

8. Regard being held to the rival submissions of the
learned advocates, let me refer to some Judicial precedents on
the issue of compassionate appointment.

8.1 In the recent judgment in the case of Canara Bank
v. Ajithkumar G.K., reported in AIR 2025 (SC) 1232, the
Supreme Court in regards to policy to appoint the
dependent/family member of an employee, who died in harness,
referred to the earlier judgment and held as under:-

“10. The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an
employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically
rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the
family in utter penury, is not of too distant an origin. Going
by law reports, the policy seems to have originated during
the seventies of the last century and gained momentum in
the following decades with this Court laying down
guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate
appointment. The rationale for such appointment has been
explained in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim
Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 8514 in the following words:

Page 6 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

‘8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they
should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the
normal route through which one can get into a public
employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions,
there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which
have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per
one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved
family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of
his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour
to the family which has been suddenly plunged into
penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner.
This Court has observed time and again that the object of
providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as
opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public
employment.’ ”

8.2 It is no more res-integra that the appointment on
compassionate ground is offered on the humanitarian ground is
an exception to the general rule of equality in the matter of
public employment. (See General Manager, State Bank of
India v Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475).

8.3 Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in
two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule,
viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on
account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner
while in service. (See V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India, reported
in (2008) 13 SCC 730)

8.4 While narrating the object of granting compassionate
employment, it is said by the Supreme Court in the case of
Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, reported in (1989) 4 SCC
468, that the whole object of granting compassionate
employment by an employer being intended to enable the family

Page 7 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over
the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate
ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in
distress.

8.5 In Union of India v. Amrita Sinha reported in
(2021) 20 SCC 695, the Supreme Court held that none can
claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of
death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the
sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and
any appointment without considering the financial condition of
the family of the deceased is legally impermissible

8.6 Supreme Court in I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani
Tripathi, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162, says that, the idea of
compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless
compassion.

8.7 Thus, the compassionate appointment is neither a
vested right of the plaintiff, nor it is an endless compensation,
but it is wholly based upon the financial condition of the family
of the deceased employee, where family is in distress or penury
or financial trauma, the plea thus, has to be evaluated on the
facts of each case, or else the object of the scheme would stand
defeated, inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every
dependant of the employee dying in harness would claim
employment as if public employment is heritable. Worthy
reliance can be placed upon the case of Union of India v.
Shashank Goswami, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 307, to
buttress this observation.

Page 8 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

9. Adverting to the facts of the case, firstly let me refer
the issues framed by the learned Court below at Exhibit-17:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her mother Nani Kutti
T. was serving as a staff nurse in Civil hospital at Junagadh
and she died on dated 4-4-1987 during the service ?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she was minor at the
time of the death of her mother ?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that when she was minor
her father had remarried and due to it she resides separate
from her father ?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has applied for
service in proper time after she attained majority ?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the income of family
pension cannot be count as limit of income?

6. Whether the plaintiff proves that the order of defendant
to reject the application of the plaintiff to get the service on
compensate ground is illegal, against the policy of the
Government and the principles of natural Justice ?

7. Whether the plaintiff proves that after the death of her
mother she is entitled to get the service on compensate
ground ?

8. Whether the defendant proves that this Court has not
jurisdiction to entertain present suit?

9. Whether the deft, proves that plaintiff's suit is time
barred ?

10. Whether the deft, proves the contention raised in para
10 of written statement Exh.15?

11. Whether the deft, proves that, as per the policy of the
Government the plaintiff is not entitled to get the service on
compensate ground?

12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the the reliefs as
prayed for?

Page 9 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

13. What Order and decree ?”

Inasmuch as 13 issues have been framed by the
learned trial Court. Amongst them, issue Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and
11 answered in Affirmative. Issue No.3 answered in partly
Affirmative. Issue Nos. 6 to 9 and 12 answered in Negative.

10. Learned trial Court having referred to the facts of the
case, mainly on Two aspects, denies employment to the plaintiff
on the ground of compassionate appointment. Firstly, that
plaintiff is not in harness. Plaintiff’s father is in a Government
job. Learned trial Court declined the plaintiff’s plea that her
father has abandoned her. Learned trial Court answering this
plea held that plaintiff is studying in Boarding school and during
the vacation period, she used to visit her father’s home. She has
been maintained through family pension of the mother received
by the plaintiff, and in addition thereto, plaintiff’s father was also
helping her to study and Secondly, the learned trial Court
referred to Exhibit-36, which is a Government Resolution issued
by the State Government, whereby the term ‘dependant’ was
defined. The Government Resolution states that, only a
Widow/Widower would get the employment on the ground of
compassionate appointment, subject to financial condition. The
learned appellate Court, as against the aforesaid finding,
recorded the reasons that since father has remarried, it cannot
be stated that the father’s income is sufficient and the plaintiff
was not in financial distress and that, the Government
Resolution at Exhibit-36 shall not be applied to the plaintiff as it
applies prospectively from the year 2000, plaintiff’s claim is

Page 10 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

much prior to it, and therefore, plaintiff fell in the definition of
‘dependant’ and she is entitled to get the employment on the
ground of compassionate appointment.

11. Having assessed the finding of the learned Court
below, I find that the learned appellate Court ride on the surmise
and conjecture to grant the decree in favor of the plaintiff. The
two reasons are suffice to stand out the judgment and decree
passed by the learned appellate Court. Firstly, at no point of
time, father disclaimed the responsibility of the plaintiff, who
was minor at the relevant time, despite, he remarried. No
evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff to say and
establish that her father did not owe plaintiff’s responsibility,
rather to be noticed that plaintiff studied in the Boarding School.
The father was serving in a Government job at the time of death
of the mother and continued the same till he superannuated.

12. This matter is taken up for hearing today, the
plaintiff was getting family pension of her mother in relation
thereto, she was also maintained by her father or rather, it can
be said that at no point of time, she preferred any litigation
claiming that she has not been maintained by her father. The
foundational aspect that she was not maintained by her father
and that she was in financial trauma or penury, without having
being backed by any evidence on record does not be proved.
Therefore, the finding of the learned appellate Court without
being supported by any evidence that the plaintiff was in
financial stress and she was facing penury leads her to be in
harness is totally baseless and groundless finding or rather its a
surmises and conjecture.

Page 11 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

13. Perusal of the plaint indicates that plaintiff has not
claimed any policy, instruction or Government Resolution of the
Government, which permits the plaintiff to seek employment on
the ground of compassionate appointment. The State
Government, while leading the evidence produced, Resolution or
policy for compassionate appointment at Exhibit-36 on record.
This being the Exhibit-36 Government Resolution setting up the
guidelines to grant the appointment on the compassionate
ground. It is dated 10.03.2000. There was a previous Notification
dated 13.10.1975 and it was amended by the Exhibit-36
Government Resolution. Under this scheme, dependant was
treated to be widow or widower or unmarried daughter or son.
Learned trial Court recorded that, according to this Government
Resolution, plaintiff is not entitled to get any employment.

14. Learned appellate Court referred to Exhibit-35 and
said that Exhibit-36 Government Resolution would apply
prospectively and Exhibit-35 would apply. However, Exhibit-35
does not provide any guideline. It is a letter of the Government
clarifying that, initially the income limit, which was considered
for employment on the compassionate appointment was
Rs.600/-, but it was too meagre, and therefore, it was a letter
written to the State Government by the Secretary that this
condition may be reviewed. Therefore, placing of reliance by the
learned appellate Court on Exhibit-35 is again a complete
misreading of Resolution. The latest Government Resolution,
therefore, does not permit the plaintiff to have the employment
on the ground of compassionate appointment.

Page 12 of 13
C/SA/121/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026

15. It is admitted position that, pending the litigation, the
plaintiff became fortunate and got Government service as a
Teacher in the year 2016 and she restricted her claim to the
monetary loss by making representation claiming it up to
August, 2016. Learned APP places the same on the record of this
Second Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Vishwas S. Dave
appearing for the original plaintiff did not dispute about the
correctness of this letter.

16. In view of above, according to this Court, the State
Government has made out a case to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, all three substantial questions of law framed
hereinabove are answered in favor of the appellant.

17. Hence, this appeal is allowed.

i) Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.50
of 2002 dated 28.01.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and
the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 passed in Regular
Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000 is restored.

ii) It is clarified that this Court has not examined
whether the plaintiff is entitled to any monetary claim up to
August, 2016 or not, and therefore, that issue has been left
undecided as it is not part of the proceedings.

iii) Registry is directed to return back the Record and
Proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.

Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJ SUBHASH DHOBI(HC01779), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 16:27:48

Page 13 of 13