Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1493/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1493 of 2010
=========================================================
VIJAYKUMAR
FATEHSINH RATHOD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DIVYESH A JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RUSHABH R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIKUNT
RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 19/04/2010
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 communications/
decisions dated 03.10.2009 and 06.01.2009 respectively taken by the
respondent-authorities and to direct the respondent-authorities to
consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. The
brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was
serving as a Talati-cum-Mantri at Village Mojipura, Taluka Thasra,
District Kheda and died in harness on 10.02.2004. Therefore, the
petitioner made an application to the respondent-authority seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner also supplied
relevant documents as asked for by the respondent-authorities.
However, vide communication dated 06.01.2009, the
respondent-authorities rejected the application of the petitioner in
view of the Government Circular dated 29.03.2007.
4. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the
respondent-authorities to consider his case on sympathetic and
humanitarian grounds. However, vide communication dated 03.10.2009
the respondent-authority informed the petitioner that his
representation has been rejected. Hence, this petition.
5.
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 18.03.2004
and the same was considered by the respondents on the basis of the
subsequent policy and not on the basis of the policy which was
prevailing on the date of the application.
6. 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.
7. For
the reasons stated herein above, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned communications/decisions dated 06.01.2009 & 03.10.2009
passed 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 law and on merits, within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of this order.
8. 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