Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6886/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6886 of 2010
=========================================================
JHARUDDIN
NASRUDDIN MALEK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 14/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
10.01.1991 passed by respondent no.2, whereby, the application of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. The
facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner was serving as a
Gram Sevak with respondent-District Panchyat and died in
harness on 03.11.1989. On 11.09.1990 the petitioner herein made an
application to the respondent-authority requesting to grant him
appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said application
came to be rejected vide order dated 10.01.1991. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 03.11.1989
and the petitioner had made the application for compassionate
appointment on 11.09.1990. The said application of the petitioner
came to be rejected by respondent no.2-authority vide impugned order
dated 10.01.1991. The petitioner has sought to challenge the impugned
order by way of filing the present petition only in the year 2008,
i.e. after a period of more than 17 years. No explanation, much less
any satisfactory explanation, has come from the petitioner with
regard to the said delay caused in filing the present petition.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330.
In that case, it has been held that if petition is filed beyond a
reasonable period, say three years, normally, the Court would reject
the same or restrict the relief. In the present case, as stated
herein above, the petition came to be filed after a delay of more
than 17 years and no explanation has come from the petitioner as
regards the said delay. Hence, only on the ground of delay, the
relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
5. Consequently,
the petition stands summarily rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top