Loading...

Dineshkumar vs State on 29 June, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dineshkumar vs State on 29 June, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7250/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7250 of 2010
 

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


 

DINESHKUMAR
RAMJIBHAI GABANI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PM LAKHANI, MRS RP LAKHANI and MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI for the
Petitioner. 
Mr. Nikunj Rawal, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondents. 
========================================= 

 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/06/2010 

 

 
 
					ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioner’s father Ramjibhai was working as Principal of a primary
school. He expired on 9.11.1985 while in service. The petitioner
applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 24.6.1988 stating
that he has passed S.S.C. examination in October, 1987 and possessed
requisite qualification for being considered and appointed as a
clerk. The said application came to be rejected on 16.4.1994 on the
ground that the family income was sufficient to support the family
and there was no penury. The petitioner therefore, preferred Special
Civil Application No. 12169 of 1994. It was allowed by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court by order dated 30.10.2004 giving following
direction.

“10.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of
the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and to take a
decision on the petitioner’s application for appointment on
compassionate grounds and issue appropriate orders in accordance
with law, as early as possible preferably within the period of three
months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.”

The
said order was challenged by the State by preferring LPA No. 1919 of
2007 which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated
13.3.2009. Thereafter, the respondent authorities passed an order
dated 15.2.2010 by rejecting the petitioner’s application for
appointment on compassionate ground mainly on two grounds (i) that
the income of the family was sufficient to support itself (ii) that
almost 24 years’ period has gone by and as such there was no penury,
family has survived for such a long time.

The
order indicates that the petitioner’s brother Bipinbhai is serving in
Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co.Ltd. and is drawing a salary of Rs.
6828/- from 1990. Another brother was earning a salary of Rs. 400/-.
In addition, family pension of Rs. 7171/- was received by family.
These aspects are not disputed by the petitioner.

2. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has focussed his arguments on two
aspects, firstly that the respondent authorities have acted contrary
to the direction of the learned Single Judge and secondly that the
delay is not attributable to the petitioner.

3. It
is a settled proposition of law that the appointment on compassionate
ground is a concession and not a right. Such schemes are floated with
a view to provide assistance to the family of an employee who has met
with an untimely death while in service. It is with a view to help
the family in times of penury. In this context, decisions reported in
2006(5) SCC 766; 2009(13) SCC 600 and 2007(4) SCC 778 can
be profitably referred to.

4. In
the instant case, learned Single Judge’s direction is to consider and
decide the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in
accordance with law. The law as per various pronouncements of the
Apex Court and High Court is that compassionate appointment is mainly
for the purpose of supporting the family to tide over difficult
financial time faced by the family due to untimely death of an
employee. In the instant case, more than 24 years’ time has elapsed
and the family has survived. Financial condition of the family is
also a relevant aspect. Even if that is considered, the trauma of
death and its consequences are left far behind by lapse of about 24
years’ time. Under the circumstances, this Court does not exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the
respondent authorities which is in consonance with various judicial
pronouncements. The petition must fail. It stands rejected.

(A.L.Dave,J)

***vcdarji

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information