Compassionate appointees are entitled to regular pay scale and seniority from initial appointment date.

The petitioner’s father, a Beat Guard, died in harness on 30.04.1994.

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk (Class-III) on a compassionate basis on 15.04.1996.

His services were terminated on 11.09.2002 after he failed to clear the mandatory pre-service training examination within the prescribed chances.

Following the Supreme Court’s direction in similar cases, the State issued Government Resolution (GR) dated 16.06.2015, which allowed for the reappointment of such terminated employees to Class-IV posts.

However, the GR stipulated that the appointment would be treated as "fresh," on a fixed-salary basis for five years, with no credit for past service or seniority.

The petitioner accepted these conditions under an undertaking and was reappointed on 21.11.2016 but subsequently challenged the restrictive conditions of the GR.

1. Whether the conditions in Government Resolution dated 16.06.2015 forfeiting earlier services and seniority are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the respondent is justified in appointing the petitioner on a fixed salary for five years despite his initial compassionate appointment being in a regular pay scale.

The Court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness in State action and prohibits arbitrary classification.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent of *Brijesh Vipin Chandra Shah v. State of Gujarat*, which held that while back wages may be denied, seniority and continuity of service must be reckoned from the initial date of appointment for compassionate appointees moved from Class-III to Class-IV.

The Court further applied the principle from *Union of India v. International Trading Company*, stating that any change in policy must be informed by reason and not be whimsical.

Regarding fixed pay, the Court followed the Division Bench ruling in *Letters Patent Appeal No. 855 of 2022* and *Jitendrakumar Ashwinbhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat*, holding that compassionate appointments based on the 10.03.2000 policy are substantive and should be on a regular pay scale from inception.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner belongs to a homogeneous class of compassionate appointees.

By treating the petitioner's reappointment as "fresh" service while the Supreme Court in *Brijesh Vipin Chandra Shah* had expressly directed continuity and seniority for similarly situated persons, the State created an unreasonable classification lacking an intelligible differentia.

The Court found that the GR dated 16.06.2015 was explicitly based on Court orders but deviated from those orders by stripping service benefits, rendering it per se arbitrary.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the State's defense regarding the petitioner’s signed undertaking, holding that the doctrine of waiver or estoppel cannot be invoked to bypass fundamental rights under Article 14 when State action is found to be unconstitutional.

On the issue of fixed pay, the Court noted that the initial appointment was made under a policy intended for regular pay scales, and subsequent general circulars for fixed-pay regimes could not retroactively diminish the nature of compassionate appointments.

The Court directed the respondents to: (1) issue a modified appointment order granting continuity of service and seniority from the initial 1996 appointment on a notional basis for the period between termination and reappointment.

(2) place the petitioner on a regular pay scale from the date of his Class-IV reappointment (21.11.2016) with all consequential benefits.

(3) calculate and pay salary arrears (for the period worked) by 30th April 2026.

Back wages for the period 2002–2016 were denied.