SCA/482620/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4826 of 2008 ========================================================= SUJALKUMAR T. MAKWANA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 18/09/2008 ORAL ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 05.09.2007 passed by the respondent
authority and further to direct the respondent authority to apply and
extend the benefit of Government Resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and
07.09.2002 to the petitioner prevailing at the time of the death of
the father of the petitioner.
2. The
father of the petitioner who was working with the respondent died in
harness and therefore the petitioner made an application for
appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent authorities
denied appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and
therefore the present petition.
3. Mr.
Raval, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent has passed the order dated 05.09.2007 without
considering the request of the petitioner and without considering the
case in detail that though the petitioner is having requisite
qualification and is also fulfilling the criteria for being appointed
in Class III Cadre as per the policy prevailing at the time of death
of his father, the petitioner came to be appointed in Class IV Cadre.
He has submitted that the petitioner came to be appointed in view of
the Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004 instead of 10.03.2000 and
07.09.2002.
4. This
Court has considered the materials placed on record. It is an
admitted position that pursuant to the death of the petitioner’s
father on 26.03.2004, the application for compassionate appointment
was preferred on 16.04.2004. However, the application of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated
05.09.2007.
4.1 The
purpose of providing a compassionate appointment is to mitigate the
hardship due to the death of the breadwinner of the family. It
cannot be claimed as a matter of fundamental or statutory right.
Moreover, it is also a 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 the
application. The financial implications which arise on the part of
the government is also required to be considered.
5. As
a result of hearing and perusal of records, it appears that the
respondent authority has passed the order rejecting the application
of the petitioner considering various factors such as the
availability of the vacancy, prevailing rules, financial implications
etc. The appointment on compassionate ground not being a fundamental
or statutory right cannot be enforced upon any authority. An
endeavour is made by the petitioner to get a direction from this
Court for appointment on Class III Cadre instead of Class IV cadre.
This Court cannot accept the same as the appointment on relevant
posts is the discretion of the authority. In that view of the
matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary
power in favour of the petitioner and the petition requires to be
dismissed.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//