Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12924/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12924 of 2011
=========================================================
CHUDASAMA
AYUVANSINH VINUBHA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO.SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DM DEVNANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR ANAND SHARMA ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 30/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned advocate Mr. Devnani appearing for the petitioner and Mr.
Anand Sharma, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent State
authorities.
2.0 The
father of the petitioner was working as Deputy Accountant who expired
on 22nd January, 2009 and thereafter immediately
application for compassionate appointment has been made by petitioner
on 27th January, 2009, which has been rejected by letter
dtd.20th August, 2009 which has been forwarded with
communication dated 9th December, 2010 and 24th
January, 2011.
3.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Devnani submitted that aforesaid application has been
rejected while relying upon policy dated 10th March, 2000
and 29th March, 2007 issued by the respondent. Learned
advocate submitted that in one decision of this Court in Special
Civil Application No.2112 of 2011 dated 14th July, 2011
[Annexure-E, Page-38] wherein this Court has observed that in
Government Resolution dated 29th March, 2007 there is no
criteria or ceiling income has been made specifically which has not
been considered by respondent authority while examining application
made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore,
relevant paras: 2 to 4.1 of order which has been passed by this Court
dated 14th July, 2011 in SCA No. 2112 of 2011 are quoted
as under:
” 2.0 The
request / application made by petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected by respondents by communications dated
19th June 2010 and 6th July 2010, Annexure ‘E’
collectively, page 26 and 27 only on the ground that family of the
petitioner receives family pension of Rs.8,866/- and other retiral
benefits of Rs.9,27,957/- have been received by the family of the
petitioner after the death of concerned employee on 12th
November 2008. Therefore, respondents – authorities have
considered subsequent Government Resolution dated 29th
March 2007 and came to conclusion that family of the petitioner is
not in a pitiable condition and therefore, the request made by
petitioner was rejected.
3.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Pandit, appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
in Annexure ‘G’, page 41 to 44, wherein, information as regards
application under the provisions of Right to Information Act has been
provided, wherein, on page 44 it is specifically made clear that, in
Government Resolution dated 29th March 2007, no income
ceiling has been specified for considering application for
compassionate appointment, either by GAD or by Panchayat Department.
Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Pandit submitted that, case of
petitioner, which has been rejected by respondents considering
Government Resolution dated 29th March 2007, keeping in
mind amount of retiral benefits, which has been received by family of
petitioner and family pension being received by family of petitioner,
is not applicable to petitioner, as no such criteria have been set
out in the said Government Resolution and therefore, the same cannot
be considered for denying appointment on compassionate ground.
Moreover, in earlier cases, at page 41, in all, 12 persons have been
considered and ultimately, offer has been made for compassionate
appointment, without even considering income criteria.
4.0 In
view of aforesaid background, respondents are directed to examine and
reconsider case of petitioner for compassionate appointment according
to Government Resolution dated
29th March 2007,
wherein, income ceiling or criteria is not made applicable and
without taking into account such income or amount, which has been
received by family of petitioner, decide the case of petitioner in
accordance with aforesaid Government Resolution dated 29th
March 2007 within three months from the date of receiving copy of
this order and communicate the decision thereof, to the petitioner
immediately.
4.1 It
is made clear that, if there is no income criteria is specified in
Government Resolution dated 29th March 2007, then,
question of considering income or amount, which has been received by
family of petitioner does not arise.”
4.0 The
respondent has examined application made by petitioner and rejected
in by order dated 20th August, 2009 wherein respondent has
considered both policy dated 10th March, 2000 and 29th
March, 2007 and also considered the income criteria as well as
ceiling income while rejecting such application. The respondent has
also considered that family of present petitioner is not in pitiable
condition, however, the respondent authorities have not considered
other relevant aspects. Therefore, it is directed to respondent to
reconsider aforesaid decision dated 20th August, 2009
[Annexure C, Page 30] and examine the issue whether in Circular dated
29th March, 2007 any income criteria or ceiling has been
specified or whether it has been specified to consider the financial
status of the family of the petitioner for deciding application or
whether family of the petitioner is in pitiable condition or not. Let
these aspects may be reexamined as per policy which was prevailing at
the relevant time when the father of the petitioner expired, within a
period of three months from the date of receiving copy of the present
order and take appropriate decision and communicate it immediately to
the petitioner.
5.0 In
view of the above observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
However, in the case if ultimate decision is adverse to the
petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same
before appropriate forum in accordance with law. Direct Service is
permitted.
[H.
K. Rathod, J.]
Amit
Top