- (1.)By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 7/9/11/2012 passed by the Assistant Director i.e. respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no.3') whereby, the application of the petitioner seeking lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment has been rejected.
(2.)Tersely stated are the facts:
2.1 The mother of the petitioner Jashiben B. Solanki was serving as Class-IV employee with General Hospital, ESI Scheme, Gotri Road, Vadodara since 29/7/1982 and she passed away on 12/4/2011. Upon demise of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 12/5/2011 for grant of compassionate appointment, as the petitioner was wholly dependent upon his mother and she was the sole earning member.

2.2 The application dtd. 12/5/2011 of the petitioner, after travelling inter-departmentally and intra-departmentally, came to be returned vide letter dtd. 9/8/2011 with instructions to be processed in terms of the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17940 of 2011 before this Court challenging the communication dtd. 9/8/2011 as well as praying for quashing and setting aside of the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide oral judgment dtd. 16/3/2012 with a clarification that the application of the petitioner be examined and if it is found to be in order, complying with all the requirements, a decision be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. So far as the challenge to the validity of the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011 is concerned, the same was not accepted.

2.3 In the interregnum, it appears that an application dated nil was submitted by the petitioner to the Director ESI scheme with a request to provide lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011, if the petitioner is not given compassionate appointment. In the said application, there is a reference to a communication dtd. 7/10/2011 whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been filed.

2.4 Apropos the oral judgment dtd. 16/3/2012 and more particularly, clarification contained in the penultimate paragraph, the application of the petitioner came to be considered by the respondents and ultimately, vide letter dtd. 7/9/11/2012, it came to be rejected on the grounds, namely, that the father of the petitioner is not alive; the family pension has not been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner; and the petitioner is married. Consequently, it is observed that the conditions enumerated in the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011 are not fulfilled, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for lump sum compensation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

(3.)Upon issuance of the notice, the respondent no. 3 has filed his reply. The averment made by the petitioner that application was rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of No objection certificate by the brother, is denied. It is emphatically stated that the application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to claim lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. While further elaborating, it is stated that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was married and was not eligible to claim family pension as per clause (ii) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules'), read with condition no. 3(3) of the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. That the petitioner was not eligible and entitled for the lump sum compensation inasmuch as, the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is bereft of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.