Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11840/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11840 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
PIYUSHKUMAR
JAYANTILAL SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MEDICAL
OFFICER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MAHENDRA U VORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 3,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition the
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the decision taken by
the respondent no.4, rejecting the application of the petitioner to
get employment on compassionate ground and further to direct the
respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate
ground after considering the application of the petitioner afresh at
the earliest.
The brief facts of the case
are as under:-
2.1
As per the say of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner
serving as driver with Respondent no.1, had expired while in
employment on 15.6.1986.
2.2
The petitioner had submitted an application. After a lapse of about
5 to 7 years. The petitioner received a communication from
respondent no.2 to submit documents. On 21.8.1999, the petitioner
was informed that his application for appointment on compassionate
ground is not accepted on the ground that dependent is residing
separately from the family.
2.3
The petitioner had also made request for reconsideration, which
also came to be rejected. Hence this petition.
Heard learned advocates for
the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
From the record it revealed
that the father of the petitioner has expired in the year 1986 and
the petitioner has moved the application after a lapse of more than
five years.
It is required to be noted that the petition is inordinately
delayed. In the case of Shiv Dass V. Union of India and Others,
reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330, it is held that if the petition is
filed beyond reasonable period,say, three years, normally court
would reject the same or restrict the relief. Therefore this
petition at this stage cannot be entertained. The same is therefore
dismissed.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top