Gujarat High Court High Court

Dilipsinh vs State on 16 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Dilipsinh vs State on 16 October, 2008
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7430/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7430 of 2008
 

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

 

DILIPSINH
ARJUNSINH SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DHAVAL M BAROT for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/10/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
communication dated 1/4/2005 of respondent no.2 and prayed to direct
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment.

2. Father
of the petitioner who was working as Armed Constable has expired on
9/8/1987. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his
father. Therefore, after becoming major on 14/1/1998, the petitioner
has made an application on 23/4/1999 for compassionate appointment
i.e. after one year and three months. The said application for
compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent no.2 on 1/4/2005
on the ground of delay in filing application. Hence, this petition
has been filed.

3. Even
after rejection of the application, the petitioner has approached
this Court in the year 2008 i.e. after a delay of two years and ten
months. There is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay
in approaching this Court. It is required to be noted that the
purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to
mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family.
Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family distress. The delay on the part of the petitioner
shows that there was no crises in the family, otherwise the
petitioner would have approached this Court without any delay.

4. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition.
The same is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as
to costs.

(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)

(ila)

   

Top