Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/489020/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4890 of 2008
=========================================================
MUKESHBHAI
HIMMATBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.B
K.RAJ for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR APURVA DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 17/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1.0. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside the order dated 1st
September, 2007 passed by respondent no. 3.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. The
father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent no. 3,
died in harness and there the petitioner made an application for
appointment on compassionate ground.
3.0. The
learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent-authority has erroneously rejected the request of the
petitioner even though the father of the petitioner had died in
harness. According to him, the delay caused in applying for
appointment on compassionate ground should have been condoned.
4.0. As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record, there is no dispute
that the father of the petitioner had died on 31st May,
2001 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was
made on 9th August, 2002. Admittedly, there is a long
delay in applying for appointment under the scheme.
5.0. In
the appointment of compassionate ground, there should not be any
delay in such appointment. In the case of State of Manipur v.
Md.Rajaodin, reported in (2003) 7 SCC pg.511, the Apex Court has
held that when there is a long delay in applying for appointment
under the scheme, such request cannot be accepted. It is required to
be noted that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate
ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in
the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. In the present case,
the petitioner is not able to point out any provision in the scheme
which enables the petitioner to apply for appointment on
compassionate ground after a long delay.
6.0. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is accordingly rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top