Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8807/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8807 of 2011
=========================================================
THAKOR
UDESING SOVANJI KESHAJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
GOVERNMENT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHAILESH C SHARMA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 18/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. S. C. Sharma appearing on behalf of petitioner
and learned AGP Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1.
2. Leave
to amend respondent no.1.
3. In
present case, application made by petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected by order dated 4/3/2009 only on ground
that at the relevant time when application was made by petitioner,
family of petitioner was not in pitiable condition as per policy
dated 10/3/2000.
4. Learned
advocate Mr. Sharma submitted that pension amount as well as death
retirement benefits has been taken into account while rejecting such
application but respondent has not considered that how many family
members are there in petitioner’s family and whether any debt has
been occurred after death of petitioner’s father and other
circumstances that whether any regular income is received by
petitioner’s family per month from any source or not. These are
factors that have not been taken into account by respondent.
5. Therefore,
it is directed to respondent no.1 Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural
Development Department to reconsider earlier decision dated 4/3/2009
and examine whether family of petitioner is in pitiable condition or
not and also inquire that how many members are residing with
petitioner and whether any debt has been occurred because of death of
father and whether any other income regularly received by family of
petitioner monthly or not or any other source of regular income and
thereafter pass appropriate reasoned order considering aforesaid
factual background as per policy dated 10/3/2000 within a period of
three months from date of receiving copy of present order and
communicate decision immediately to petitioner.
6. In
view of above, present petition is disposed of by this Court without
expressing any opinion on merits. However, in case if ultimate
decision is adverse to petitioner, it is open for petitioner to
challenge same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Direct service is permitted.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J.)
(ila)
Top