Judgment:
SCA/1326/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1326 of 1999
Approval and Signature: MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
For
HONOURABLE
=========================================================
1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? |
3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? |
5 | Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? |
=========================================================
MANOJKUMAR KANTILAL DAVE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
========================================================= THAKORE FOR MS MEGHA JANI Petitioner(s) : 1, MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. 5,
Appearance :
MR
MR NJ SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR HS
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
CORAM : | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI |
Date : 03/10/2011
ORAL
1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.09.1997 passed by respondent no.5 whereby, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected and further to direct the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
2. The father of the petitioner was working as a Principal of the Primary School situated at Lia, Taluka Muli and died in harness on 23.03.1982 leaving behind the widow, a son, the petitioner herein and two daughters. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 16 years. On 01.03.1989 the petitioner attained the age of majority and he applied to the respondent-authority for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.12.1993. However, his application came to be rejected by order dated 23.09.1997. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner attained the age of majority on 01.03.1989 but, the application for compassionate appointment was preferred after a delay of more than two years. Apart from that the deceased father of the petitioner was serving on a Class-I post at the time of his death and therefore, as per the Government policy which was prevailing at that time, the petitioner was not found to be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds since such benefit was given to only those employees who were serving either on a Class-III or Class-IV post had died in harness. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the widow of the deceased had also made an application for compassionate appointment and the respondent-authority granted her appointment to the post of Sweeper vide order dated 27.01.1986 but, the widow did not resume the duties on the said post and therefore, the order of appointment was, subsequently, withdrawn.
4. Considering the facts of the case and the policy prevailing at the relevant time, I am of the opinion that the respondent-authority has not committed any illegality by denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Compassionate appointments are granted keeping in mind the hardships which a family has to face on account of the sudden and unexpected death of the bread-winner. It is not a fundamental or statutory right but, a welfare policy. The petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. Since his case did not fall within the requisite criteria, he was not granted appointment.
5. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
| Top |