Gujarat High Court High Court

Kantigar vs Deputy on 2 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Kantigar vs Deputy on 2 August, 2011
Author: H.K.Rathod,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9655/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9655 of 2011
 

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

 

KANTIGAR
MOHNAGAR BAVAJI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DEPUTY
SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRHARSHADKPATEL
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 02/08/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.H. K. Patel appearing for petitioner. Father of
petitioner was serving on regular post of Pasayat with respondent
no.3 Gram Panchayat since many years. Father of petitioner expired
on 25/8/1988. Therefore, application has been made by petitioner for
compassionate appointment and other family members have no objection
if compassionate appointment is given to petitioner but no response
is given to application for compassionate appointment made by
petitioner from respondents and though all relevant documents are
supplied to respondents no decision is taken. Ultimately considering
inaction on part of respondents, a legal notice is served by
petitioner to respondents which remained unattended and not decided
by respondents. Therefore, present petition is filed.

2. One
Hon’ble Minister of state level has also given recommendation in
favour of present petitioner. Even though respondents are not
considering it. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that
some suitable direction may be issued to respondents so that they may
consider application of petitioner and examine it and then pass
appropriate reasoned order within a reasonable period.

3. In
view of above facts, it is directed to concerned respondent
authorities to consider representation dated 4/2/2011 made by
petitioner through advocate considering case of petitioner for
compassionate appointment as per government policy which was
prevailing at relevant time when father of petitioner expired and
then pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of three months
from receiving copy of present order and communicate decision to
petitioner immediately.

4. In
view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed
of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct
service is permitted.

(H.K.RATHOD,
J.)

(ila)

   

Top