Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2819/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2819 of 2010
=========================================================
NEHA
JAIDEVBHAI YOGANANDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KG PANDIT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RASHESH RINDANI AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 02/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order
dated 06.12.2008 passed by respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner
was refused to grant appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The
father of the petitioner who was working as a ‘Tracer’ with
respondent no. 3 and died in harness on 20.10.2001. Thereafter,
immediately the petitioner made an application to the
respondent-authority requesting to appoint her on compassionate
grounds. However, respondent no. 4 has forwarded the application of
the petitioner to respondent no. 3 to consider the case of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground physical
disability. The respondent no. 4 vide order dated 11.12.2005 rejected
the application of the petitioner on the ground that she is not
entitled to get the appointment. However, respondent no. 3 vide
order dated 09.02.2007 informed the petitioner that for exceptional
and special case i.e. on the ground of physical disability, the
petitioner shall approach the appropriate authority and that
respondent no. 3 has no authority to issue any direction in this
regard.
2.1. Thereafter,
the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 11.03.2008 to the
respondents-authorities to consider her case for appointment on
compassionate ground. Respondent no. 4 vide order dated 06.12.2008
rejected the said representation on various grounds viz. That the
mother of the petitioner is earning and at the relevant time when the
application was preferred by the petitioner, she was minor and,
therefore, under the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
2.2. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner raised her
grievance before the Joint Mobile Court of Chief Commissioner for the
Persons with Disabilities-respondent no. 5 herein. However, the Dy.
Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerments directed the respondents-authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. However, after
the aforesaid directions issued by respondent no.5, no decision has
been taken by the respondents-authorities till date. Hence, this
petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner. From the record it appears that
the mother of the petitioner was a working woman. Apart from that on
the date of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds,
the petitioner was minor. 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. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of
death of her father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages
specially otherwise to state that as and when such minor becomes a
major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.
Thus, in the present case it appears that there was no crisis in the
family as the mother of the petitioner was working and that the
family was not totally dependent on the petitioner. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the authority has rightly rejected the
application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds in view of the fact that her mother is working and that she
was minor at the time when the application was preferred for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. In
view of the above fact, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
petition is accordingly rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top