Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 717 (GUJ)

Hansaben Narsinhbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2009-11-11

JAYANT PATEL

body2009
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—As in both the matters, common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgement. 2. In both the petitions, challenge made by the concerned petitioners is the decision of the competent authorities for denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that the family members, who expired were not regular Government servants, but were badli workers. 3. In SCA No. 6744 of 2004, the facts appear to be that the husband of the petitioner was working as ward servant on badli basis and he expired on 3.2.2004. Upon the death of the husband of the petitioner, she applied for the job on compassionate ground. The authority considered the matter and found that since the husband of the petitioner was working as badli worker and not in the regular set up, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted. It is under these circumstances, the said petitioner has approached this Court. 4. In SCA No. 1184 of 2005, the mother of the petitioner was working as badli worker - Ayaa and she expired on 1.8.2004. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the said application has been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was working as ‘Ayaa’ being badli worker and not as permanent employee, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Heard Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Soni, learned AGP for the State authorities. 6. As such on the aspects of status of the concerned person, who were working as badli worker, there is no dispute. However, the contention of the petitioners in both the petitions is that since in capacity as badli worker the person concerned were continued for long time, there was a right of regularization and on the basis of such right of regularization the compassionate appointment is required to be given to the dependent member of the family of the deceased. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kamlaben K. Vaghela vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2000 (2) GLH 9 and contended that in similar case, the right of regularization was read and it was found by the Court that the dependent member of the family of the badli worker would be entitled to compassionate appointment. 8. 8. Whereas the learned AGP appearing for the State authorities relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees’ Union, reported in 2004 (3) GLR 1 and contended that there is no right of regularization and, therefore, the compassionate appointment has been rightly denied. 9. It may be recorded that in the decision of this Court in the case of Kamlaben K. Vaghela (Supra) the Court found that the name of the employee concerned was included in the list of employees to be regularized and such aspect was not disputed. The said finding is available at Paragraph 3 of the said decision and based on the same the Court had taken the view that the compassionate appointment would be available to the dependent member of the family of the deceased. 10. Such is not the fact situation in the present case of SCA No. 6744 of 2004, inasmuch as it is not the case of the petitioner that the deceased person was to be regularized in service, since the name of the deceased employee was also included in the list of the persons to be regularized but in SCA No. 1184 of 2005, the learned Counsel contended that the deceased employee would fall in the category of the persons entitled for regularization as per the policy of the Government. Of course, no authenticated record is produced by the petitioner for such purpose. 11. Apart from the above, it appears that on the aspect of regularization of any such workman, including the badli worker, the legal position would stand covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality (Supra). The Full Bench of this Court has observed to the extent that even Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal has no such power for directing regularization of service of workman in any local authority or public body, since they have not entered the service after following regular selection process. 12. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased badli worker had any lawful right for regularization in service. The policy of compassionate appointment would be applicable to the employees, who are in the set up on regular basis. 12. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased badli worker had any lawful right for regularization in service. The policy of compassionate appointment would be applicable to the employees, who are in the set up on regular basis. Under these circumstances, as the deceased badli workers were not in the regular set up, nor, as observed earlier, had any right to be regularized, the compassionate appointment would not be available, therefore, has been rightly denied by the respondent authorities. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the petitions are meritless. Hence, dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.