Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/767/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 767 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5695 of 2008
=========================================================
VIPULKUMAR
PURSHOTTAMBHAI LADHER - Appellant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KIRTIDEV R DAVE with MR
RAHUL K DAVE for Appellant.
MR UMANG OZA, AGP, for Respondent :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
Heard
learned advocate Mr.K.R.Dave for the appellant.
2. The
appellant is aggrieved by the order passed on 2.4.2008 in Special
Civil Application No.5695/2008, which runs as under :
?SIt
is not denied that the mother of the petitioner is in service. She
was in service when the petitioner’s father died. The petitioner
applied for compassionate employment. As per the policy, if any
member of the family is in government service at the time of death,
then, the benefit under the compassionate employment scheme cannot be
given. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is not given the
employment on compassionate ground, no illegality is seen. The
petition has no force. Hence, it is dismissed.??
3. Learned
advocate Mr.Dave has drawn our attention to a specific averment made
in the memorandum of the petition that similarly situated persons
have been given compassionate appointment and, therefore, the
petitioner-appellant is meted out with discriminatory treatment.
4. When
called upon to satisfy us that the case of the petitioner-appellant
satisfies the eligibility criteria, Mr.Dave was unable to do so. The
principle of parity or equality cannot be applied where the alleged
action, in respect of others, is not legal. Differently put, if the
appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, he cannot claim
to be considered for compassionate appointment on the ground of
somebody-else’s appointment, which may not be in accordance with law.
5. We
do not find any error to have been committed by the learned Single
Judge in light of the above facts. Therefore, the appeal must fail
and stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.] [Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari,J.]
(patel)
Top