Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6593/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6593 of 2011
=========================================================
AJAYSINH
NAGINBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GENERAL
MANAGER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DIPAK R DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 06/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocates for the parties.
This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner, son of the deceased employee who expired on duty on
12.02.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that he had passed
Standard X examination and is eligible by acquiring such
qualifications prescribed under the Government Resolution dated
10.03.2000 to seek claim on compassionate appointment. It is
further submitted that in view of inter-se dispute in the family
about the claim of dues of the deceased employee for which a Civil
Suit was filed and finally it was decreed in the year 1999 and
therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment is not delayed
and besides, all family members have given their no objection if the
petitioner is appointed on compassionate grounds.
Mr.
Dipak R. Dave learned Counsel for the Gujarat Electricity Board has
relied on the affidavit filed by the respondent, regulation of the
Electricity Board and earlier communication by which the petitioner
was denied the appointment on compassionate ground and submitted
that the challenge to such communication is even belated by about 11
years. It is further submitted that in case of an employee who died
in harness, if the family has survived for about 13 years, it cannot
be said that a case is made out for compassionate appointment.
Besides, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on General
Condition of Service No.92 which specifically prohibited contracting
of second marriage by an employee during his service and such
service is to be terminated. It is further submitted that even
considering the overall merits, no case is made out for issuance of
directions as prayed for.
Having
heard learned Counsels for the parties and considering overall facts
and circumstances, it is not in dispute that the deceased employee
had contracted second marriage during his service and dispute was
between his two wives and Civil Suit was filed and later on
settlement was arrived at; at the same time claim of compassionate
appointment is grossly belated. Not only that but considering the
regulation of the Electricity Board, the claim of compassionate
appointment and belated challenge after 11 years to the decision
dated 15.11.2000 passed by the then Gujarat Electricity Board, I am
not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petition deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Notice discharged.
Sd/-
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
Caroline
Top