Gujarat High Court High Court

Ashokkumar vs State on 6 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Ashokkumar vs State on 6 October, 2008
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1185220/2008	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11852 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

ASHOKKUMAR
MAFATBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SD SUTHAR for MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

	  Date
: 06/10/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0. The
petitioner has prayed for a direction directing the respondent to
consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and
further to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2005.

2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-

2.1. The
father of the petitioner died on 24.07.2000. On 03.11.2001, the
petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate
ground. After various correspondences, the said request of the
petitioner came to be rejected by impugned order dated 20.07.2005 on
the ground that pursuant to the Notification dated 16th
March, 2005, the requisite qualification required for appointment of
Class-IV category is SSC. Hence, this petition.

3.0. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the record
that the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2008
i.e. after a delay of about five years. There is no explanation
forthcoming for the said delay in approaching this Court. It is
required to be noted that the purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardships due to death of the
breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be
provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The delay on
the part of the petitioner shows that there was no crisis in the
family, otherwise, the petitioner would have approached this Court
without any delay.

3.1. Even
otherwise, this petition does not deserve to be entertained on the
ground of delay and latches. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of
India & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC pg 1330, the Apex Court
has held that the cause of action continues from month to month and
that if the petition is filed beyond reasonable period, say three
years, normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the
relief. Thus, keeping in mind the principle laid down in the
aforesaid decision, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

/phalguni/

   

Top