Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1138520/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11385 of 2008
=========================================================
SOLANKI
NATVARLAL NANJIBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JAYRAJ CHAUHAN for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
UM SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned Advocates for the respective parties waive service. With the
consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard today.
2. 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 28.04.2008 passed by respondent? authority, whereby, the
petitioner was refused to grant appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. The
father of the petitioner was working as a Head Master in a school at
Ucharpi, District Panchmahals and died in harness on 25.07.2004. On
11.09.2004, the petitioner made an application requesting to appoint
him on compassionate grounds. As no response was received pursuant to
the said application preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner sent
reminders to the respondent ? authority.
3.1. Thereafter,
vide letter dated 20.12.2005, respondent no. 1 demanded certain
information and documents from the petitioner, which were provided by
the petitioner. However, the application of the petitioner came to be
rejected vide impugned order dated 28.04.2008 whereby the petitioner
was refused to grant appointment on compassionate grounds. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner
has approached this Court by way of this petition.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the
petitioner had preferred the application for appointment on
compassionate grounds on 11.09.2004 and that the same was considered
by the respondents on the basis of the policy which was prevailing
subsequent to the said period and not on the basis of the policy
which was prevailing on the date of the application.
5. In
my opinion, the said contention raised by the petitioner deserves
consideration inasmuch as it is well-settled law that the
authority concerned is required to consider the application for
compassionate appointment on the basis of the policy prevailing at
the time of the application. The said principle has been laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar v. State of
Haryana & Ors. reported in (2006) 12 S.C.C. 44
and also in the case of S.B.I. v. Jaspal Kaur reported
in (2007) 9 S.C.C. 571. Hence, the respondent ?
authority is required to consider the application of the petitioner
on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the time when the
application for compassionate appointment was made.
6. For
the reasons stated herein above, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.04.2008 issued by the respondent-authority is
quashed and set aside. The respondent ? authorities are directed to
consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of the policy
that was prevailing on the date of the application and pass necessary
orders thereof in accordance with. It is made clear that this Court
has not entered into the merits of the matter and the respondent ?
authority shall decide the application of the petitioner on merits.
7. With
the above observations & direction, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top