Decided on August 11,2014

Kaushikbhai Ratilal Mandani Appellant
SECRETARY Respondents


VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17280 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition being devoid of merit.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Anvesh V.Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the respondents. The appellant -original petitioner's father, who was working as a tracer with the respondents, passed away on 19th September, 2003 while in harness. The appellant -original petitioner, thereafter, made an application for compassionate appointment on 3rd October, 2003. However, by an order dated 19th January, 2006, the said application came to be rejected as the appellant was a minor. At the time of making the application in the year 2003 by the appellant, the appellant's mother and sister were eligible to claim appointment on compassionate basis but they did not claim the same. The appellant, upon attaining the age of majority, once again, made an application dated 17th March, 2006 on the ground that he had now attained the age of majority and, therefore, his matter may be reopened and he may be appointed on compassionate basis. By a communication dated 19th September, 2006, the appellant was informed that his application for compassionate appointment has not been accepted by the State Government. Subsequent thereto, the appellant made yet another application dated 21st September, 2007 to the State Government seeking compassionate appointment as a special case and thereafter, filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12928 of 2011, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by making observation that at the time of the death of his father, the appellant being a minor, could not make any application for compassionate appointment and that after he became a major, he immediately made an application, which aspect has not been considered. The court observed that let this aspect also be considered as per the policy which was prevailing at the relevant point of time when the father of the appellant expired. Thereafter, the appellant approached the respondent -authorities by way of an application dated 7th October, 2011, which has been rejected by an order dated 5th April, 2012, which was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by recording the finding of the fact that after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court which is extracted in para -8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which is extracted below: "8. It is by now well settled that a policy for compassionate appointment has to be interpreted in terms of the clauses of the said policy. When under the policy as prevailing at the relevant time, an application for compassionate appointment was required to be made within six months and during that period the petitioner was not a major, no fault could be found in the action of the respondents in turning down the said application. From the facts as appearing from the record, the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2006 much after the death of his father. At the relevant time, both, the petitioner's mother as well as his sister, were competent and eligible to apply for compassionate appointment: however, they did not deem it fit to make any such application. The present case, therefore, stands squarely covered by the above decisions of the Supreme Court. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner, the same was rendered in the peculiar facts of the said case wherein by the time the first application came to be rejected the appellant therein had attained the age of majority, which is not so in the present case. In Digvijaysinh Mahendrasinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat (supra) the Division Bench has only remitted the matter to the respondents to consider the same afresh. Hence, neither of the decisions in any manner supports the case of the petitioner."
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, the procedure followed by the respondent is illegal and not in accordance with law. He argued that if a minor applies for compassionate appointment, then as per Government Resolution, the respondents were required to give appointment to the family of the deceased after making due inquiry regarding eligibility of other family members.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.