Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4143/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4143 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHESHBHAI
TRIKAMBHAI RAIYA (THAKKAR) - Petitioner
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANVESH VYAS FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR
for
Petitioner.
None for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 08/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE
R.M.DOSHIT)
This
petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from
the judgment and order dated 16th June 2009 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original
Application No.7 of 2008.
The
petitioner Maheshbhai is the son of one Trikambhai Raiya (Thakkar).
The said Trikambhai Raiya was employed (in Grade-C category) by the
Union of India in the Department of Post. After attaining the age of
57 years, the said Trikambhai Raiya was retired from service on
medical ground. Since the retirement of the said Trikambhai Raiya,
the petitioner applied for compassionate employment. The scheme for
compassionate employment provided for appointment of a dependent
family member of the employee, inter-alia, who is retired on medical
ground under Rule 38 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,
1972 before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for Grade-D
Government servant). The petitioner not being eligible for
compassionate employment, his request was turned down.
Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in above-referred Original Application No.7 of
2008.
Before
the Tribunal, the petitioner urged that though, according to the
official record the said Trikambhai Raiya had retired after
attaining the age of 57 years, in fact the date of birth of the said
Trikambhai Raiya registered in the official record was not correct.
The actual age of the said Trikambhai Raiya on the date of
retirement was just above 50 years. In support thereof, the
petitioner relied upon the application dated 16th January
2005 made by the petitioner to the Chief Post Master General,
Ahmedabad. The Tribunal did not believe the claim put forth by the
petitioner and rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
There
cannot be any other view but that the petitioner is not entitled to
compassionate employment. In our view, it is nothing but a
dishonest attempt on the part of the petitioner to secure employment
on compassionate ground. It must be noted that the said Trikambhai
Raiya had at no time during his service come forth with the case
that the date of birth registered in the official record was
incorrect. Nor did he apply for rectification of the alleged mistake.
For the first time on 16th January 2005, four years after
the retirement of the said Trikambhai Raiya, the petitioner came
out with a case that the said Trikambhai Raiya did not know the
correct date of his birth and that the correct date of birth was 10th
January 1950; as if the son had more information then the father.
Not
only that the petition is frivolous, but it is also a dishonest
attempt on the part of the petitioner to secure Government
employment. Such people do not deserve to be in public employment.
The
petition is dismissed in limine.
(MS.
R.M. DOSHIT, J. )
(
M.D. SHAH, J)
syed/
Top