Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 685 (GUJ)

Dikpalsinh Lalsinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2009-10-28

JAYANT PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Rule. Ms. Thakkar, learned AGP waives notice of Rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Chauhan with Mr. Munshaw waives notice of Rule for respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The only question to be considered is whether the Government is justified in rejecting the application for the compassionate appointment on a mere ground of financial position of the family of the petitioner. 4. It appears that this Court vide order dated 24.01.2008 in Special Civil Application No.38/08, in similar circumstances, had taken the decision, whereby the action of the authority for rejecting of the application for compassionate appointment on the criteria of income was quashed and set aside. At para 6 in the said decision, it was observed as under: "6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and considering the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000 whereby all kinds of income limit is removed which is again reiterated in another resolution dated 7.9.2002, since the petitioner herein is otherwise duly eligible and qualified to stake his claim for the appointment on compassionate ground, the order impugned dated 29th October, 2007 at Annexure I is contrary to the above resolutions and in spite of earlier order of this Court dated 13.9.2007 to consider the case of the petitioner the representation of the petitioner is rejected in arbitrary manner denying him appointment on compassionate ground, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 29.10.2007." 5. If the impugned decision, which has been communicated to the petitioner at Annexure-A is taken into consideration, it appears that there is reference to the Government decision dated 04.07.2008. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not in a position to show that the Government took the decision after taking into consideration its own Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 or not. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned decision can be said as without proper application of mind and hence, arbitrary and the matter will be required to be reconsidered afresh after taking into consideration the above referred Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 and to pass afresh order. 7. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned decision can be said as without proper application of mind and hence, arbitrary and the matter will be required to be reconsidered afresh after taking into consideration the above referred Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 and to pass afresh order. 7. Hence, the impugned decision at Annexure-A dated 04.08.2008 as well as the Government decision dated 04.07.2008 which has been referred to in the said order (Annexure-A) for rejection of the application of the petitioner is quashed and set aside with the direction that the matter shall be required to be reconsidered afresh by the authority in light of the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002. Consequently, the District Development Officer shall once again forward the proposal on the basis of the present order of this Court to the competent authority of the State Government which may be forwarded within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court and thereafter, the competent authority shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the proposal and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. 8. Petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule partly made absolute. No order as to costs. D.S. Permitted.