Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10572/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10572 of 2008
=========================================================
SURESH
MANSINGBHAI RAVAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DA BAMBHANIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HH PARIKHA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV V SHAH for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/10/2008
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned
Advocates for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard today.
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the letter dated
18.8.2006 as well as the order dated 28.11.2006 declaring the same
illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents whereby,
the petitioner was refused to grant appointment on compassionate
grounds.
The
father of the petitioner died in harness on 10.05.1994. Thereafter
the petitioner made an application requesting to appoint him on
compassionate grounds. After various correspondences, vide letter
dated 18.08.2006 respondent authorities rejected application of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of this petition.
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 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.
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 re-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 that too within three months from
receipt of the copy of writ of this order.
For
the reasons stated herein above, the petition is partly allowed. The
order dated 18.8.2006 and 28.11.2006 passed by the respondent
authorities are quashed and set aside. The respondent ?
authorities are directed to reconsider 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.
With
the above observations & direction, the petition stands disposed
of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to
costs. Direct service permitted.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
Amit/-
Top