Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/297420/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2974 of 2008
=========================================================
RAKESHKUMAR
UMEDBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR
RUTVIJ M BHATT for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
29.11.2007 passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the application of
the petitioner and to direct the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner on compassionate ground.
3. The
father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent, died
in harness and therefore the petitioner made an application for
appointment on compassionate ground. After various correspondences,
ultimately the request of the petitioner came to be rejected by the
respondent authority on the ground of delay in filing the
application. The petitioner made a representation on 21.03.2005
stating that only 21 days delay had occurred. In absence of any
positive reply, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application before
this Court being SCA No. 20064 of 2005. The said delay was condoned
by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2006.
3.1 Thereafter,
an application was again preferred by the pet but the same was
rejected by the respondent on the ground of family income. The said
order was challenged in this Court and this Court vide order dated
20.06.2007 directed the respondents to pass an order afresh after
considering various resolutions of compassionate appointment. The
petitioner again preferred an application and the same was also
rejected on the ground that the application is not filed within six
months and that since four years have already passed, the family of
the petitioner does not require any job on compassionate basis.
Therefore the present petition has been filed with the aforesaid
prayer.
4.
The contention raised in this petition by Mr. Brahmbhatt is to the
effect that the petitioner has preferred application within the time
limit and that when the earlier delay of 21 days was condoned by this
Court, the respondent authority has deliberately rejected the
application on some other flimsy ground. He has relied upon the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana and Others reported in 2006(12)SCC 44 and also in the case
of SBI Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in 2007(9)SCC 571 wherein it is held
that the matter should be decided within the parameters of the scheme
prevailing when the application for compassionate appointment was
made.
5. The
contention of Mr. Brahmbhatt is required to be accepted inasmuch as
the earlier representation was rejected by the respondent authority
on the ground of delay. When the same was condoned by this court,
the petitioner preferred another representation but the same was also
rejected on the ground of family income. After another order passed
by this Court to consider the various resolutions of compassionate
appointment issued time to time, the respondent authority rejected
the representation on the ground that four years have passed and the
family has not required the job during the said time. It is required
to be noted at this stage that the petitioner was persuading the
matter from the very beginning be it before the authority or this
Court. The delay is on the part of the authority in not considering
the application on the right ground at the time it was preferred.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be penalised for a
delay which has occurred without any fault on his part.
5.1 In
view of the aforesaid decision also, after the delay of 21 days was
condoned by this Court, the authority ought to have considered the
fresh representation on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing
when the earlier representation was preferred. In that view of the
matter, the petitioner is entitled to receive compassionate
appointment keeping in mind the scheme which was prevailing on the
date of the application.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the respondent authority
qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents shall appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in
the class/cadre he is entitled as per his educational and technical
qualifications within a period of the three months from the date of
receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top