SCA/836020/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8360 of 2008 ========================================================= SUBHASHBHAI JESHINGBHAI DODHI-AR - Petitioner(s) Versus GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VIRAL V DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR BHAVIK J PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/09/2008 ORAL ORDER
1.0. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated
20th October, 2005 passed by respondent no. 3 and to
direct respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. The
father of the petitioner, who was working with Sardar Vallabhbhai
U.B. Vidyalaya, died in harness and, therefore, the petitioner made
an application for appointment on compassionate ground. After various
correspondences ultimately, the request of the petitioner came to be
rejected by respondent no. 3 on the basis of notification dated 4th
October, 2005 issued by the General Administrative Department.
Therefore, the present petition has been filed with the aforesaid
prayer.
3.0. The
only contention raised in this petition is to the effect that the
petitioner had preferred application on 1st September,
2005 and the same was considered on the basis of the scheme
subsequent to the said period and not on the basis of the scheme
which was prevailing on the date of the application. This contention
requires to be accepted inasmuch as it is well settled law
that the respondent is required to consider the application for
compassionate appointment on the basis of the scheme which was
prevailing at the time of application. This principle is laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of SBI v. Jaspal Kaur, reported in
(2007) 9 SCC pg. 571 wherein, it is held that the matter should
be decided within the parameters of the scheme prevailing when the
application for compassionate appointment was made.
4.0. In
the premises aforesaid, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned
order dated 20th December, 2005 passed by respondent no. 3
is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall consider the
application of the petitioner on the basis of the scheme which was
prevailing on the date of the application.
5.0. It
is clarified that this order is passed without entering into the
merits of the request for compassionate appointment and the authority
shall consider the matter on its merits.
The
petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/