Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10654/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10654 of 2007
=========================================================
KAUSHIK
KISHOREBHAI BHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SANDEEP N BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR HARDIK A
DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MR RC JANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
KRINA CALLA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the State
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the
order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment.
2. The
petitioner’s father was working as daily wager which is a Class IV
post on temporary basis. The service of the petitioner’s father was
regularised on the same post. His father expired on 06.11.1996. The
mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on
22.12.1996 and 17.02.1997. However the petitioner’s mother expired on
06.02.1999.
3. On
10.01.2002, the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, had
applied for compassionate appointment citing the case of two such
persons who were appointed on compassionate basis. However his
application was rejected by the respondent.
4. On
26.12.2003 the petitioner again requested for compassionate
appointment giving reference of the two persons who were appointed on
same grounds. However the respondent vide their Letter dated
17.02.2004, clarified that the other two persons appointed on
compassionate basis were as a special case. Pursuant to the same,
the petitioner reiterated his request but there was no response which
resulted into filing of this petition.
6. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that in view
of the policy which was prevailing on the date the petitioner’s
father was working as a daily wager, and therefore the petitioner is
not entitled for compassionate appointment. This principle is well
settled in various decisions of the Apex Court. The respondent
authority cannot travel beyond the policy prevailing at the relevant
time. Therefore no case is made out to cause interference in this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
petition is therefore dismissed.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J.)
(Caroline)
Top