Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8061/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8061 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
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 ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
DEEPAK
SURESHCHANDRA VYAS - Petitioner
Versus
CONTROLLER
AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANAND B GOGIA for Petitioner.
None for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 01/07/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
We
have heard Mr. Anand B. Gogia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This
writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2011
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,
Ahmedabad in O.A. No.138 of 2010.
The
father of the petitioner who was working as Record Keeper in the
office of Principal Director of Audit, Western Railway, Rajkot died
in harness on 05.01.1999. The widow sought an appointment on
compassionate ground. She was informed that there was no post
available in Group ‘D’ cadre and, therefore, her application for
compassionate appointment was rejected. After rejection of her
application, she moved another application that her minor son be
appointed on compassionate ground. Subsequently, the petitioner who
became major, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. His
name was noted. But, the claim for compassionate appointment was
rejected.
We
are of the opinion that once the compassionate appointment has been
refused to the widow of the deceased, no right is conferred
thereafter on the son to move application for compassionate
appointment. It is well settled that compassionate appointments are
provided to meet immediate exigencies in the family to tide over the
financial crisis. It is not a source of recruitment. The father of
the petitioner died on 05.01.1999. The family has survived for a
period of 12 years. Further, the application moved by widow for
grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected, was not
challenged by the widow.
For
the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merits in the claim of
compassionate appointment made by the petitioner nor any illegality
in the impugned order passed by the respondents or by the Tribunal.
This petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
Savariya
Top