Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11174/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11174 of 2008
=========================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR
P. JOSHI & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 06/10/2008
ORAL ORDER
By
way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following substantive reliefs.
?S (A) THIS HONOURABLE COURT be
pleased to admit the present petition;
(B) THIS HONOURABLE COURT be
pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
setting aside the illegal, illogical and arbitrary action/s on the
part of the concerned respondent authorities in giving appointment to
the petitioners on ad-hoc basis and in fixed salary of Rs.2,500/-
p.m. for a period of five years as per the policy dated 15th June,
2004 and be further pleased to hold that the petitioners were
required to be given appointment on regular basis and in regular pay
scales as per the policy, which was in force at the relevant point of
time, when the applications were made by the petitioners or the
relatives of the petitioners died in harness;
(C) THIS HONOURABLE COURT be
pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
concerned respondent authorities to give appointment to the
petitioners on regular basis and in regular pay scales as per the
policy, which was in force at the relevant point of time, when the
applications were made by the petitioners or the relatives of the
petitioners died in harness;
(D) PENDING admission, hearing and
final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to
grant interim / ad-interim relief and be further pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned
respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners fro
giving them appointment on regular basis and in regular pay scales as
per the policy, which was in force at the relevant point of time,
when the applications were made by the petitioners or the relatives
of the petitioners died in the interest of justice, by way of
interim/ ad-interim relief, till the present petition is being
finally heard and decided by this Honourable Court;
The
facts of the case of the petitioners are that they are the
heirs/relatives of the persons who were employed by the Gujarat
Agricultural University, who died in harness. They made separate
applications seeking appointment on compassionate ground. They have
been given appointment on different posts on fixed salary of
Rs.2,500/- for a period of five years. Before 15th June,
2004 policy for giving appointment on fixed salary basis and ad-hoc
basis came into force, the petitioners have made representation
seeking compassionate appointment on the same ground as per the
policy prevalent at the relevant point of time. On 15th
June, 2004 new policy has come into force which provides that for
appointment on ad-hoc basis and on fixed salary basis ought not to
have been applied in case of petitioners. The petitioners made
representation dated 04.08.2008 which has not been decided so far
and, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of
filing present petition.
The
learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that at the time of
making applications for compassionate appointment by petitioners, no
policy was in existence for giving appointment on fixed monthly
salary basis and the policy for giving appointment on fixed salary
basis came into existence on 15th June, 2004 only and
therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be given compassionate
appointment considering the rules prevalent at that relevant point
of time.
Heard
both the sides. This Court expressing its limited opinion as it is
bound to follow the direction shown by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court
which held that in such case policy would apply for compassionate
appointment which prevail on date of application or in force.
Therefore, this is not case when order of respondent authority
requires any interference of this Court and therefore, the petition
being misconceived requires to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
Amit/-
Top