Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 535 (GUJ)

Dhanjibhai Kababhai Baladhiya v. State Of Gujarat

2022-04-18

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2022
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and the order/communication dated 08.01.2004 be quashed and set aside. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Vidita Jayswal for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta for the respondent – State. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner viz. Kababhai Kukabhai Baladhiya was working as work-charge labour with the respondent department. The father of the petitioner died on 21.05.1997 while in service. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent authority with a request that he may be appointed on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the said application was forwarded to the concerned competent authority. The petitioner supplied necessary details to the respondents. However, vide impugned communication dated 08.01.2004, the respondent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner mainly on the ground that mother of the petitioner is working as work-charge employee with the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Mahuva. Petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition challenging the said communication. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that though the petitioner was eligible for grant of compassionate appointment as per the relevant policy framed by the State Government, the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father. Learned advocate has referred the relevant documents which are placed on record. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that impugned communication be quashed and set aside and thereby appropriate direction be issued to the respondents. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta has referred the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned AGP submitted that the father of the petitioner was appointed on work-charge establishment and there is no policy to grant appointment on compassionate ground to the legal heirs of the deceased employee/work-charge labourer. It is further submitted that widow of the deceased Kababhai Kukabhai Baladhiya was working as work-charge labourer with the concerned Department at Mahuva and therefore when one of the family members of the deceased work-charge employee was working, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father. Therefore, the petitioner was informed about the same by way of impugned communication. Therefore, the petitioner was informed about the same by way of impugned communication. Hence, the respondent has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2004. It is also submitted by learned AGP that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2004 by filing present petition after a period of 14 years and therefore only on the ground of delay in filing present petition, this petition may not be entertained. 6. Learned AGP thereafter contended that now the State Government has taken a policy decision dated 05.07.2011 and thereby new policy is framed. Now there is no policy to grant appointment on compassionate ground. Learned AGP, at this stage, has placed reliance upon the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2227 of 2019. Copy of the said order is placed on record at page 23. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that present petition may not be entertained. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the father of the petitioner was working as work-charge labourer with the respondent department. He died no 21.05.1997 while in service. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the said application is rejected vide order/communication dated 08.01.2004. If the impugned order/communication is carefully seen, it is revealed that the request of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent mainly on the ground that widow of the deceased work-charge employee – mother of the petitioner is working on work-charge establishment in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Department, Mahuva and therefore as per the policy framed by the State Government vide G.R. dated 10.03.2000 petitioner is not entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground. It is pertinent to note that though the said communication is sent to the petitioner in the year 2004, present petition is filed in the year 2018 i.e. after a period of 14 years. Thus, on the ground of gross delay in filing this petition, this petition is not required to be entertained. Further, there is no explanation given by the petitioner for not filing the petition within reasonable time. Thus, in absence of any sufficient cause shown by the petitioner in not filing the petition within reasonable time, the petition is required to be dismissed only on this ground. 8. Further, there is no explanation given by the petitioner for not filing the petition within reasonable time. Thus, in absence of any sufficient cause shown by the petitioner in not filing the petition within reasonable time, the petition is required to be dismissed only on this ground. 8. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not placed the policy on record upon which he has placed reliance. In the impugned order/communication, it is specifically stated that petitioner is not eligible for grant of compassionate appointment as per G.R. dated 10.03.2000. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent authority, it is specifically stated that mother of the petitioner was serving with the office of concerned respondent as a work-charge labourer and at the relevant point of time in the year 2001-2002, she was getting monthly income of Rs.2500/-. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder and controverted the aforesaid averment made on affidavit by the concerned respondent authority. Thus, when the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment even as per the G.R. dated 10.03.2000 issued by the State Government, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that claim for compassionate appointment has a purpose of giving immediate help to the family who has suffered crisis due to death of bread-earner in the family. The claim of compassionate appointment has to be put forth and the benefit has to be conferred within reasonable time. Once the long time passed-by, the compassionate element stands extinguished. A family who could survive for long years would not be entitled to any compassionate benefit since compassionate benefit is not a largesse nor it is a rule in the employment. The very policy of giving compassionate appointment has the object of providing immediate relief to the family. It is well settled that the request of such nature would not be entertained after span of long years. In the present case, indisputably, the order impugned/communication dated 08.01.2004 is challenged by the petitioner after a period of 14 years. When this petition was filed, the age of the petitioner was 45 years and as on today he is aged more than 49 years. 10. Thus, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Notice discharged.