GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. KANJI NATHA KARMATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Letters Patent Appeal, order of the learned Single judge dated 1. 7. 1994 passed in Special Civil Application NO. 1832 of 1993 has been challenged. Kanji Natha Karmata (Petitioner) applied for appointment on compassionate ground, his father having died while in service on 31. 10. 1970. At that time, the petitioner was two months old. Mother of the petitioner applied in 1988 to the Port officer, Gujarat Maritime Board, Veraval. Thereafter, she applied again in April, 1989 followed by another attempt dated 25. 3. 1988. Ultimately, the petitioner got communication that his request cannot be accepted, having applied after prescribed time limit. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 1832 of 1993 seeking direction against the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground against the first available vacancy under their control anywhere in the State of Gujarat. Appellant is aggrieved by this order, therefore, challenged through this appeal.

(2.) MS. S. K. Mandavia submits that the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground for many reasons namely he applied after many years; family having survived for these years; necessity of seeking compassionate appointment not surviving; rules for compassionate appointment were not in force in 1970 and the father of the petitioner being casual worker having worked for three and half years alone, petitioner is not entitled to seek such appointment on compassionate ground. In support of her submissions, learned advocate Ms. Mandavia made a reference to the apex court decision in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND others [ (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138] and STATE OF UP AND others VERSUS PARAS NATH [ (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 412].

(3.) THE matter is examined. The papers have been perused, more particularly, the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The petitioner was two months old at the time when his father died. Obviously, he could not apply for compassionate appointment at that stage. His mother applied in 1988 by which time he may be 18 years old, eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, followed by another communication of appointment in 1989 and 1991 when the respondents did not decide the application.