Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12886/2007 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12886 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
ASHOKBHAI
MOTIBHAI BHIL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MRPOPATJIHSOLANKI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
6.3.2007 passed by the respondent and further to direct the
respondent no.2 to give appointment to the petitioner on
compassionate ground.
The
brief facts of the case are as under ;-
2.1
As per the say of the petitioner, his father was working as
work-charged security guard with the respondent and passed away on
28.12.2000, while in service. The petitioner preferred an
application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on
27.3.2001. The said application came to be rejected.
2.2
The petitioner therefore preferred a Special Civil Application
bearing no. 874 of 2007, wherein this Court has directed vide its
order dated 11.1.2007 to decide the representation of the petitioner
within stipulated period. Thereafter , the application of the
petitioner, came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated
6.3.2007. Hence this petition.
Heard the learned advocates
for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
From the record it revealed
that the petitioner s mother is working in Government sector and
she is also able to get pension, gratuity.etc. The petitioner vide
its application dated 23.3.2001, himself disclosed that he was
residing separately from his father. The son who is not living with
his father, cannot be treated as Dependant on his father. In that
view of the matter, there are no merits in the petition. The same
is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to
costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top