Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1462/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1462 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6789 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1746 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1462 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
DESAI
RAJUBHAI LILABHAI & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
Mr. N.J.Shah,
Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant.
Mr. K.G.Pandit for Respondent no.1.
MR MANISH J
PATEL for Respondent no.2.
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent
no.3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
We
have heard Mr. N.J.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the appellant, Mr. Kiran G.Pandit, leaned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. Manish J Patel, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 and Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State
Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, wherein
the Apex Court has held in para-23 as under:
“23. Hence
a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds
should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person
left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penurious,
such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial
condition of the respondent’s family is not one of destitution, the
appellants have already paid a sum of Rs.4,57,607 as terminal
benefits (after deducting Rs.19,183 towards liabilities); a sum of
Rs.2055 p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income
under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly
income of the family comes to Rs. 5855 (monthly pension of
Rs.2055+Rs.3800 p.m. as notional interest on the investment of
Rs.4,57,607). The competent fact-finding authority o the basis of the
above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the
financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the
family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence
appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the
respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with
this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.”
2. On the
other hand, Mr. Kiran G.Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.1 has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of
this Court rendered on 9th March, 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 2785 of 2010 in State of Gujarat v.Budhabhai A.Chavda. We are
of the opinion that since the learned Single Judge has only remanded
the matter back to the concerned authority for deciding the
application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light
of the prevailing policy at the time when the petitioner submitted
the application on 17th March,2005, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order. But we add that the concerned authority
shall also consider the above-mentioned decision cited by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader and the decision cited by the learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 while taking the decision in the
matter.
3. Since the
Appeal filed was pending before this Court, the time limit framed by
the learned Single Judge could not be complied with by the appellant.
Therefore, we direct that the concerned authority shall take a fresh
decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date
copy of this order is produced before it. With the aforesaid
observations, this Appeal stands finally disposed of. As the Appeal
is disposed of, Civil Application No.1746 of 2011 does not survive.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(V.M.Sahai,J)
(G.B.Shah,J)
***vcdarji
Top