Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12682/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12682 of 2008
=========================================================
JIGNESH
THAKARSHIBHAI LATHIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AS SUPEHIA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HH
PARIKH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr. H.H. Parikh, learned AGP waives service of rule. At the joint
request of the parties, this matter is taken up for hearing.
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication
dated 22.05.2008 and 16.06.2008 issued by the respondent, whereby,
the petitioner was refused appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The
father of the petitioner was working as Junior Clerk in the office of
the respondent and died in harness on 08.01.2007. On 23.01.2007, the
petitioner’s mother had made an application requesting to appoint him
on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, vide Letter dated 18.04.2007
the respondent informed the petitioner to provide certain details,
which were provided by the petitioner on 19.04.2007.
3. However
vide Order dated 22.05.2008 the respondent informed the petitioner
that his case for appointment on compassionate grounds has been
rejected by the respondent on the grounds of income and property. It
was stated in the said letter that the petitioner is not entitled to
compassionate appointment as per the Government circular dated
29.03.2007, para-2(8). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of
the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the
petitioner had preferred the application for appointment on
compassionate grounds on 23.01.2007 and that the same was considered
by the respondents on the basis of the policy which was prevailing
subsequent to the said period and not on the basis of the policy
which was prevailing on the date of the application.
5. In
my opinion, the said contention raised by the petitioner deserves
consideration in as much as it is well settled law that the authority
concerned is required to consider the application for compassionate
appointment on the basis of the policy prevailing at the time of
application. The said principle has been laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Reported in (2006) 12 S.C.C. 44
and also in the case of S.B.I. v. Jaspal Kaur
reported in (2007) 9 S.C.C. 571.
Hence, the respondent-authority is required to consider the
application of the petitioner on the basis of the policy which was
prevailing at the time when the application for compassionate
appointment was made.
6. For
the reasons stated herein above, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned communication, i.e. Order dated 22.05.2008 and letter dated
16.06.2008 issued by the respondent is quashed and set aside. The
respondent authorities are directed to consider the application of
the petitioner on the basis of the policy that was prevailing on the
date of the application and pass necessary order thereof in
accordance with. It is made clear that this Court has not entered
into the merits of the matter and the respondent ? authority shall
decide the application of the petitioner on merits.
7. With
the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed
off. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs. Direct service permitted.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J.)
(Caroline)
Top