Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1191320/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11913 of 2008
=========================================================
BHAVESHKUMAR
M PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SIKANDER SAIYED for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 24/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. Shivang Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State
waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter
is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The
petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent authorities to decide
the application of the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
3. The
father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent
authority, died in harness and therefore the petitioner made an
application for appointment on compassionate ground. Even after
various correspondences, the application is still pending with the
respondent authority. Therefore the present petition has been filed
with the aforesaid prayer.
4.
The only contention raised in this petition is to the effect that the
petitioner has preferred application on 12.02.2005 and the same has
not been decided till date. This contention though requires to be
accepted inasmuch as it is well settled law that the respondent
authority is required to consider the application for compassionate
appointment on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing at the
time of the application, however, in the present case, it is borne
out from the records that the father of the petitioner died while in
jail. This means that the father of the petitioner was either a
convict or an undertrial prisoner.
5. In
this context it would be relevant to peruse a recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of General Manager, State Bank of India and
Ors. Vs. Anju Jain reported in 2008(11) SCALE 647. The Apex Court
upholding the submission of the petitioner bank therein that if the
services of the employee were not fully satisfactory and he was found
guilty at the departmental inquiry and was punished for misconduct,
it was open to the employer not to grant the benefit of
appointment on compassionate ground to the dependent of such tainted
employee after his death held that if on that ground, an order
is passed, it cannot be objected on the ground that no
such action could have been taken as the dependents could not be
punished for misdeeds alleged to have been committed by
the deceased.
6. In
view of the above, in the present case, the father of the petitioner
was in the prison at the time of his death. Learned advocate for the
petitioner is not able to controvert this position in light of the
aforesaid decision. In that view of the matter this Court is not
inclined to exercise any discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.
This petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top