Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1975 (GUJ)

Kalavatiben Manojbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-06

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a widow of a deceased, Class IV employee, has prayed for the following reliefs: “7 (A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 and further be pleased to direct respondent no. 1 to give compassionate appointment to petitioner; (B) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) Your Lordships be pleased to impose the exemplary costs on the respondents; (D) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. It appears from the materials on record that the husband of the writ applicant was serving as a Class IV employee in the office of the respondent No. 2, District Inspector, Land Records. He was a regular employee. The husband passed away on 6th February 2002 while in service. On the demise of the husband, the writ applicant as a widow preferred an application dated 12th February 2002 seeking compassionate appointment. The application dated 12th February 2002 is at page - 8 (Annexure: “A” to this petition). The endorsement beneath the application would indicate that the same was acknowledged on 12th February 2002 itself. 3. The District Inspector, Land Records, Banaskantha at Palanpur addressed a letter dated 27th May 2002 to the writ applicant calling for certain details and documents. It appears that another letter dated 16th June 2002 was addressed by the District Inspector to the writ applicant calling for the following documents: (1) Death Certificate (2) Succession Certificate (3) Family pedigree 4 The writ applicant, in response to the two letters of the District Inspector referred to above, vide letter dated 29th July 2002, furnished the required documents. 4. Despite the same, the application was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred. The writ applicant, being dissatisfied with such a decision, preferred the Special Civil Application No. 8888 of 2007 challenging the decision of the authority concerned. The writ application came to be disposed of vide order dated 3rd April 2007 in the following terms: “1. Despite the same, the application was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred. The writ applicant, being dissatisfied with such a decision, preferred the Special Civil Application No. 8888 of 2007 challenging the decision of the authority concerned. The writ application came to be disposed of vide order dated 3rd April 2007 in the following terms: “1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. The application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents only on the ground of limitation and not examined the matter of petitioner on merits. Therefore, it is directed to the respondents to re-consider the decision and examine the matter of petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits according to policy which was prevailing at the relevant time and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner immediately. 4. In view of the above observations and directions, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. However, in case if ultimate decision is adverse to the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with. Direct service is permitted.” 5. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court referred to above, the State Government once again considered the request of the writ applicant for compassionate appointment and vide order dated 18th September 2007 rejected the same on the ground that the application dated 1st September 2003 was time barred as the same could be said to have been preferred after a period of one year and seven months from the date of the demise of the late husband. 6. Being dissatisfied, the writ applicant has once again come up with this writ application. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Government committed any error in passing the impugned order. 8. The impugned order reflects total non-application of mind. The findings recorded in the impugned order are contrary to the materials on record. The application seeking compassionate appointment was filed within six days from the date of the demise of the husband. 8. The impugned order reflects total non-application of mind. The findings recorded in the impugned order are contrary to the materials on record. The application seeking compassionate appointment was filed within six days from the date of the demise of the husband. Responding to the said application dated 12th February 2002, certain information was also called for by the authority concerned in the year 2002 itself. The necessary documents were also furnished vide letter dated 29th July 2002. In such circumstances, I fail to understand why the State Government has reached to the conclusion that the application was time barred. I also fail to understand why the helpless widow has been made to run from the pillar to post past fourteen years. At this stage, Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader invited my attention to certain averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, which reads as under: “6. With reference to para - 2 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Revenue Department is absolutely true, legal and proper. The petitioner has filed this application at belated stage hence, it has been rejected. As per prevalent rules, application has to be filed within six months from the date of death of deceased as per resolution dated 10.03.2000 and 29.03.2007 annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I to this reply. 7. With reference to para-3 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that as per clause 8-A of the resolution, it is clarified that “application has to be filed for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of concerned Government servant and application filed after the period of 6 months will not be considered.” The concerned Government servant died on 6/02/2002 whereas application is preferred on 18.02.2005 hence, it is absolutely beyond time. 8. With reference to para 3.1 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that the petitioner has filed incomplete application on 12.02.2002, meanwhile on 21.02.2002 her father in law has filed application and contended that applicant Kalavatiben has filed case for divorce before the District Court, Palanpur, hence, her application may not be considered. After that no application has been received with complete details. After that no application has been received with complete details. Lastly, District Inspector of Land Records, Palanpur informed her by letter dated 27.05.2002 to produce necessary details pursuant to the application but applicant has not produced the same till 2005. 9. With reference to para 3.2 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that the petitioner made representation often but has not made proper compliance of its application as per requirement of the department. District Inspector of Land Records, Palanpur wrote a letter to the petitioner on 27.05.2002, 11.06.2002, 02.07.2002, 25.09.2003, 5.11.2003 and 30.07.2005 but petitioner has not produced any documents deliberately. Orally she was submitting that the documents has to be obtained by the department by itself. She is not required to produce any document. On 20.01.2005, the petitioner has been informed that this is not true, but petitioner has not produce any documents or comply requisites due to the court cases against in laws as per her say. Hence, she has not submitted complete application within time limit. 10. With reference to para 3.3 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that contentions of the petitioner are not true. Actually, petitioner, complied with the requirements of department in March, 2006 which has been forwarded to head of the department by the letter dated 24.03.2006 Thus, after the letter dated 20.01.2005 of the department, petitioner made necessary compliance in March 2006. The District Inspector Land Records, do not have to decide about the application so at belated stage when the petitioner complied the applicant was sent to Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Gandhinagr for decision. I have annexed herewith copied of the letter dated 27.05.2002 and 30.07.2005 vide Annexure-II and Annexure-II and I have also annexed copies of the letter dated 20.01.2005 and 24.03.2006 vide Annexure-IV and Annexure-V to this reply respectively. I further say and submit that it is not true that petitioner has made submission to Superintendent of Land Records of Palanpur by letter dated 26.06.2002, petitioner has informed the District Inspector of Land Records to obtain necessary compliance from office itself. It is clear that for giving appointment on compassionate basis, District Inspector of land record have no powers. 11. It is clear that for giving appointment on compassionate basis, District Inspector of land record have no powers. 11. With reference to para 3.4 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that the petitioner has complied requisite requirements at belated stage, application has bee tendered to Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, Gandhinagar on 24.03.2006, but as the application was time barred, it has not been accepted and written by the letter dated 07.06.2006 and inform the department to inform the petitioner. Thus, application of the petitioner has not been accepted as it was absolutely time barred. 12. I further say and submit that pursuant to the direction given in Special Civil Application No. 48 of 2007 by the order dated 03.04.2007, case have been put before the Government, but Government has rejected the application by order dated 12.09.2007, the order itself is self explanatory. It is clarified in this order that\for the purpose of the appointment on compassionate appointment basis, all the previous resolution have been cancelled and new recruitment rules framed and as per this rules applicants has to file application immediately but later than six months from the date of death of concerned Government servant in any case. Considering this aspects, petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. Manojkumar 5 Naranbhai Parmar died on 06.02.2002, but application has been preferred for compassionate appointment on 01.09.2003 which is also late by 1 year and 3 months. As these application was incomplete. The concerned department wrote a letter on 15.09.2003, 05.11.2003, 20.10.2005, 30.07.2005 and lastly requisite compliance have been completed on 18.08.2005, which is also at very much belated stage. Hence, order dated 18.09.2007 is absolutely true, legal and proper. 13. With reference to para 3.6 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that as per rules, application can be tendered before the Government only if it is complete. Due to so called dispute in family, complete application as per rules have not been submitted by the petitioner in time. 14. With reference to para 3.7 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that facts of this para are not admitted by the answering respondent. The petitioners have been informed periodically to comply necessary requirements. Due to so called dispute in family, complete application as per rules have not been submitted by the petitioner in time. 14. With reference to para 3.7 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that facts of this para are not admitted by the answering respondent. The petitioners have been informed periodically to comply necessary requirements. In person also she has been informed to bring necessary documents but petitioner was absolutely non cooperative and contended that her application in single paper is absolutely perfect and not complied requisite formalities required for the purpose. Hence, till March 2006 these requisite requirements have not been complied with. Hence, there is not substance in the petition and deserves to be dismissed. 15. With reference to para 4, 5, and 6 of the memo of the petition, I do not offer my comments. 16. I further say and submit that policy of compassionate appointment is based on theory that due to death of the Government servant, family will be able to survive if the member of deceased government servant is given employment but in present case, application has been made at very much belated stage hence, it is clear that petitioner's family is able to survive without such service. Therefore, number of judgment of this Hon'ble Court as well as Supreme Court in which this ratio has been laid down and decided that application received after belated stage may not be entertained for compassionate appointment. I have annexed herewith and marked as Annexure VI (Collectively) is copies of correspondence made between petitioner and department to this reply. 17. With reference to para 7 of the memo of the petition, I say and submit that the petitioner herself has not filed application with complete formalities and requirements. Hence, the decision taken by the authority on 18.09.2007 is absolutely true, legal and proper. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought for in the para 7.A, 7.B, 7.C, 7.D hence dismissed the petition with cost. 18. The petitioner do not have qualification of CCC Computer certificate by Government recognize institute or university. The requirement for the appointment is CCC computer course certificate by recognized institute but petitioner has produced M.S. Office certificate of non-recognized private computer class so she do not have the qualification for the appointment. The computer exam certificate produced by the petitioner is annexed to this reply.” 9. The requirement for the appointment is CCC computer course certificate by recognized institute but petitioner has produced M.S. Office certificate of non-recognized private computer class so she do not have the qualification for the appointment. The computer exam certificate produced by the petitioner is annexed to this reply.” 9. Whatever has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply is not reflected in the impugned order. The’ application has been turned down substantially on the ground that the same was time barred. If there was any inter seconflict in the family with regard to seeking of the compassionate appointment, the writ applicant could have been called upon to explain. At no point of time, the writ applicant was called upon to explain anything as regards the so-called internal dispute between the family members. 10. I am left with no other option, but to quash the impugned order and direct the authority concerned to look into the matter a fresh with a distinct understanding that the application was well-within the time limits prescribed according to the policy of the State Government. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this application is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 18th September 2007 is quashed. The authority concerned shall pass fresh order keeping in mind that the original application was well-within time and also considering the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time i.e. on 6th February 2002. If any further information is required from the writ applicant, the same may be called for and the writ applicant shall see to it that the necessary information is furnished at the earliest. The writ applicant shall furnish her current residential address within a week from today. All communication between the authority concerned and the writ applicant shall be at the fresh address that would be furnished. I expect the authority concerned to be more careful this time and see to it that no blunders are committed. There should not be any factual error in taking fresh decision. I was inclined to impose costs for the very silly mistake committed by the authority concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.