Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7031/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7031 of 2011
=========================================================
SHEILA
PAYARALI AHMADHUSAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
INSPECTOR OF LAND RECORDS & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS.
JR ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 12/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
In
this matter, a decision which has been taken by respondents dated 1st
November, 2010, page 41, is challenged by petitioner on the ground
that request made by son of deceased Payarali has been rejected
relying upon policy dated 10th March, 2000, Clause 8(B).
In
this case, concerned employee died on 27th July, 2002 as
per death certificate – page 7. Thereafter, immediately on 5th
May, 2003, a wife of deceased employee Rasidaben has filed an
application for her daughter Shabanaben and requested the authority
to consider case of her daughter for compassionate appointment. In
that letter, request is also made to pay amount of gratuity and
pension as well as provident fund. This application made by widow on
5th May, 2003 which is remained undecided and
subsequently, when son became major, he made an application which was
rejected. The date of birth of son is 16th July, 1990 and
concerned employee died on 27th July, 2002, so, naturally,
on that day, son was minor, therefore, request was made to
respondents for giving compassionate appointment to daughter Shabana
by widow of deceased employee. However, said request is rejected
considering that family of present petitioner is not in a pitiable
condition and their financial condition is not bad, therefore, as per
policy dated 10th March, 2000, Clause 8(B), has been
considered.
This
Court is failed to understand that on what ground or on what
material, a decision dated 1st November, 2010, page 41,
has been taken by respondents that family of present petitioner is
not in a pitiable condition and their financial condition is not bad.
For that, no material has been indicated or disclosed by respondents
as to why application made by widow in respect of daughter Shabanaben
has not been considered at the relevant time on 5th May,
2003. For that also, there is no explanation or reasons given by
respondents.
Therefore,
in light of this background, it is directed to respondents to
reconsider decision dated 1st November, 2010, page 41 and
point out that what material has been taken into account while coming
to conclusion that family of present petitioner is not in a pitiable
condition and their financial condition is not bad and why
application made by widow dated 5th May, 2003 in respect
of daughter Shabanaben has not been considered when it was made
immediately to respondents authorities. When purpose and object of
scheme is to provide compassionate appointment at the time when
person died during the course of employment, then, it is a duty of
respondents authorities to take immediate decision in respect of
claim for compassionate appointment. Merely delay occurred by family
members, if it is to be considered against family, then, what
happened to delay caused by department in deciding such cases. For
that, there is no answer or response given by respondents. Therefore,
in such kind of cases, when department wants immediate reaction from
family members of deceased employee, then, department should have to
take immediate action in such type of cases for compassionate
appointment.
Therefore,
let these all aspects may be reconsidered by respondents and also to
consider claim of Shabanaben, daughter of deceased employee and also
to find out that what material has been taken into account while
coming to conclusion under Clause 8(B) as per policy dated 10th
March, 2000. It is an undisputed fact that son Payarali was minor at
the time when father was died, therefore, naturally, a mother can
wait till son became major. For that, it is not a fault on part of
family. Therefore, let these entire aspects may be re-examined by
respondents and then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance
with law and policy dated 10th March, 2000 within a period
of two months from date of receiving copy of present order and
communicate decision to petitioner immediately.
In
view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed
of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
However,
in case of any adverse order made by respondents, it is open for
petitioner to challenge same before appropriate forum by filing
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Direct
service is permitted.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top