Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 115 (GUJ)

Rajendrasinh Arjunsinh Rathod v. State Of Gujarat

2015-01-29

C.L.SONI

body2015
JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 11.12.2009, 19.01.2010 and 26.02.2010 at Annexure - A passed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the family of the petitioner was not in pitiable condition. As per the case put up by the petitioner, father of the petitioner was permanent employee with respondent No. 2 who died in harness on 16.12.2003. The petitioner thereafter, made application dated 08.06.2004 seeking compassionate appointment as dependent of the deceased employee. Such application of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was informed vide three different communications which are under challenge in this petition that since the family of the petitioner was not found in pitiable condition, proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was not accepted by respondent No. 5 - Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board. 2. I have heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondent - State. 3. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the concerned authorities have not properly considered the income of the family and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the concerned authorities. Mr. Patel submitted that in any case now the State has introduced new policy dated 05.07.2011 for payment of ex gratia compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and therefore, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is required to be considered as per the new policy and the petitioner is required to be given benefit of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. 4. Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondent - State submitted that the decision in case of the petitioner was already taken by the concerned authorities and therefore, the petitioner cannot be made entitle to the benefit of lump sum compensation under the new policy dated 05.07.2011. Mr. Yagnik submitted that only those applications for compassionate appointment which were pending on the date of introduction of the new policy were required to be considered under the new policy for the purpose of grant of lump sum compensation. Mr. Mr. Yagnik submitted that only those applications for compassionate appointment which were pending on the date of introduction of the new policy were required to be considered under the new policy for the purpose of grant of lump sum compensation. Mr. Yagnik submitted that concerned authorities while dealing with the application for compassionate appointment found that the family of the petitioner received Rs. 8,89,360/- towards retiral benefits and also regularly receiving family pension of Rs. 8,369/-. Such income of the petitioner was a ground to come to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner was not in pitiable condition and therefore, the application was rightly rejected by the concerned authorities. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what is not in dispute is that after the death of the deceased employee, family of the petitioner was in receipt of above said amount. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that concerned authorities having considered above family income of the petitioner was of the view that family of the petitioner could not be said to be in pitiable condition. The petitioner was therefore, informed about decision taken on his application by impugned letters. Learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out as to how above said decision as regards family income of the petitioner was in any way illegal or not sustainable. In such view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned decision. 6. As regards submission for considering the case of the petitioner under the new policy dated 05.07.2011 for grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, it is required to be noted that since the application of the petitioner was rejected as intimated by the impugned letters, it could not be considered under the new policy as by new policy only pending applications were required to be considered for the purpose of grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The petitioner therefore, cannot be granted any relief for consideration of his case under the new policy dated 05.07.2011. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.