Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5087/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5087 of 2010
=========================================================
SIRAJ
HUSSAINBHAI JESANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
DIST.DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VB MALIK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By way of present petition, the
petitioner has inter alia prayed for directing the
respondent-authorities to give compassionate appointment to the
petitioner.
The father of the petitioner who
was working under the the respondent-authority as Valveman died in
harness on 17th October 2003. The petitioner had made an
application on 13th October 2003 to the respondents for
giving him appointment on compassionate ground.
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, since the father
of the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent authority,
he ought to have been granted appointment on compassionate ground.
As a result of hearing and perusal
of the record, there is no dispute that the father of the petitioner
has died on 17th October 2003 and the application for
appointment on compassionate ground was made by the petitioner in
time. It is pertinent to note that the respondent-authority has
rejected the application of the petitioner for giving him
compassionate appointment on the ground that the office order for
relieving the father of the petitioner on his attaining the age of
60 years was passed on 29th August 2003. In pursuance of
the same, he was to retire from 30th November 2003 on
account of superannuation. Over and above the same, the petitioner
was aged 27 years at the time of death of his father. Thus, under
any law he cannot be said to be a dependent. In that view of the
matter, the decision taken by the respondent-authority is just and
proper. In the present case, the petitioner is not able to point out
any provision under the scheme which enables the petitioner to
apply for appointment on compassionate ground though he is not a
dependent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authority
has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner in view of the
same.
In the premises aforesaid, I do
not find any merits in the petition. The same is accordingly
rejected.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top