NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/585/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 585 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14823 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 585 of 2021
================================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
MINAXIBEN RAMESHBHAI PUROHIT WD/O RAMESHBHAI B PUROHIT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR NILESH I JANI(3558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 31/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - the State authorities and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh I. Jani for respondent No.1 - original petitioner.
2. It is the District Development Officer - the appellant herein, who has sought to call in question judgment and order of learned single Judge dated 24.8.2018 whereby it was directed to the respondents to give appointment on compassionate basis to the respondent - original petitioner.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:00:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/585/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined
3. Noticing the facts, the husband of the petitioner who initially joined on 24.2.1981 in the service of District Panchayat and later become Work Assistant with effect from 2.6.1988 to become regular employee, died in harness while in service on 11.9.2005. The respondents have evolved policy of giving compassionate appointment to the kiths and kins of eligible employees dying in harness. The policy in vogue at the time of death of the husband - the employee was one reflected in Resolution dated 10.3.2000 and circulated on 23.9.2007. The applicability of the policy to the case of the petitioner is not in dispute. The issue is sought to be raised by learned advocate for the District Development Officer is about the eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment.
3.1 It transpires from the record of the petition that the District Development Officer had forwarded the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However by communication dated 1.4.2010, the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the State Government communicated to the District Development Officer - the appellant herein, the decision rejecting the proposal treating the petitioner herein to be not eligible for appointment on compassionate basis.
3.2. The reason mentioned in the the said decision was that the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:00:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/585/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined family of the deceased employee had been getting Rs.5,833/- as pension and that the family had received retirement benefits upon the death of the employee.
3.3. It may be stated that during the pendency of the petition, this court had an occasion to pass order dated 19.9.2022 whereby the respondent authorities were directed to take a decision about the case of the petitioner for being considered for the benefit of compensation in lieu of the appointment. It was stated that the said request was turned down by the respondent authorities. Be as it may.
4. Learned single Judge while granting the relief to the petitioner noted that the policy as reflected in the Resolution dated 10.3.2000 was in force at the time of death, was required to be applied. The policy criteria that the employee was appointed on regular basis and had put in minimum five years of service were satisfied in the case of the petitioner to claim the benefit of compassionate appointment under the said policy. Learned single Judge further noted that there is no income limit applicable for securing compassionate appointment under the said scheme.
4.1. The ground that the family had received the retirement benefit and pension was paid, did not found valid in view of the Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:00:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/585/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined decision of this court M. M. Kashyap v. State of Gujarat [2008(1), GLH, 373] which inter alia ruled that the receipt of retirement benefits alone could not be a debilitating factor to deny the appointment on compassionate basis if the claimant otherwise fell within the four-corners of the policy stipulation. The benefits granted under the heading of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. are not to be considered while calculating the income of the family of the deceased at the time of granting compassionate appointment, it was observed by learned single Judge.
4.2. Learned single Judge finally held that there was no good reason for the respondent authorities for rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Allowing the petition, the petitioner was ordered to be offered appointment for the next available vacancy and to count her seniority from the date she joins the duty.
5. A vain attempt was made by learned advocate for the appellant to reiterate the contentions advanced in the affidavit in reply as also by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Hardik Dinkarbhai Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.3047 of 2010 decided on 6.9.2011. This decision was distinguishable inasmuch as, it was held therein that by the time the new policy had come into force Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:00:57 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/585/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined and became applicable in the facts of that case.
5.1. In the present case, there is no dispute that the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the employee was applicable to be considered for deciding the eligibility of the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner.
5.2. Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision dated 18.11.2010 of Division Bench of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No.887 of 2010 in the case of State of Gujarat v. Thakor Narendrakumar Juhaji. The said decision stands on its own facts, not to apply in the facts of present case.
6. In the totality of operative facts and circumstances, this court does not find any error in the judgment and order of learned single Judge giving relief to the petitioner. No interference in the Letters Patent jurisdiction is warranted.
7. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application will not survive. It is disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) VATSAL Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:00:57 IST 2023