Gujarat High Court High Court

Farjanbanu vs State on 6 October, 2008

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

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1219120/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12191 of 2008
 

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

 

FARJANBANU
MOHAMMAD RASHID MALEK - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - 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, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

	  
Date : 06/10/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
10.07.2007 passed by the respondents and further to consider the case
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-

2.1. The
father of the petitioner died on 27.09.2006. Thereafter the
petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate
ground. The said application of the petitioner came to be rejected
by the respondent vide order dated 10.07.2007, on the ground that as
per Notification dated 19.07.20006, the petitioner does not possess
requisite qualification for appointment to Class-IV category. Hence,
this petition.

3.0. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. There is no dispute that
the request for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year
2007. However, the petitioner has approached this Court only in the
year 2007. 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
hardship 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.

4.0. In
the premises aforesaid, 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