Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9286/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9286 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
JAGDISH
B. CHAUHAN S/O LATE BACHUBHAI CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 20/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authorities to
consider her case for the grant of compassionate appointment.
2. The
father of the petitioner was serving as a Class-IV employee at
General Hospital, Amreli and died in harness on 30.09.1996. On
27.12.1996 the mother of the petitioner made an application to the
respondent-authority for grant of compassionate appointment.
Thereafter, on 10.06.1997, the petitioner made a representation to
respondent no.3 for granting him compassionate appointment. However,
the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 06.02.2001
on the ground that the income of the family of the deceased exceeded
the ceiling limit.
3. On
10.03.2000 the State Government issued another Circular, in pursuance
of which the petitioner made another application to the respondents,
which was forwarded to the Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal by
respondent no.3. However, vide order dated 13.03.2006, the
application of the petitioner was rejected by the said Mandal. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The application of the petitioner for the grant of
compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner was residing separately at the time when his father had
expired and that his mother was serving as a Class-IV employee in the
Hospital. Thus, on the grounds that the income was exceeding the
ceiling limit and that the petitioner was residing separately at the
time when the deceased-employee had expired, the case of the
petitioner was not considered. The said decision has been taken on
the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the relevant point of
time. Looking to the facts of the case, I do not find that the
respondent-authority has committed any illegality by rejecting the
case of the petitioner.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top