Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2963/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2963 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2941 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
===============================================
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 ?
===============================================
JIGNESH
CHANDRAKANTBHAI BHOJAK - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
===============================================
Appearance
:
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
Mr N J Shah, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
===============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 01/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr Subhash G Barot, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr
N J Shah, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 State
and Mr H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
31.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.2941 of 2009.
2.
The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner was working
as Sanitary Inspector with the Primary Health Centre at Abiyana,
District Patan. He died in harness on 20.11.2003. According to the
petitioner, his mother made an application for compassionate
appointment on 28.11.2003 for appointment of her son/the appellant.
The application for compassionate appointment could only be made by
the appellant himself and not through some other person, not even
his mother. Therefore, there was no application for compassionate
appointment filed by the appellant. The claim of the appellant was
rejected by the respondents on 21.3.2005 on the ground that the
application of the appellant was not in accordance with law, rules
and regulations.
3.
It appears that thereafter the appellant satisfied the respondents
that the application was made in requisite format and thereafter the
respondents have again considered the application of the appellant
and have rejected it on the ground that the appellant’s financial
condition is good and the family is receiving Rs.4,447/- as family
pension and has got 5,60,788/- as terminal benefits. We are of the
opinion that the family of the appellant was not
suffering from any financial hardship and was not in penury as the
family pension and terminal benefits were sufficient for the family
for their livelihood. We do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned
counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the new policy came
into force in the year 2007 and the appellant was eligible as per the
scheme of the year 2000 therefore, the appellant was entitled for
compassionate appointment under the old policy prevailed in the year
2000. Therefore, his claim ought to have been considered under the
old policy of the year 2000. We are of the considered opinion that
the policy of the year 2000 would not apply to the appellant inasmuch
as even till date he has not made any application for compassionate
appointment. The application given by the mother requesting
compassionate appointment for the appellant was not maintainable.
4. In
the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top