Bharatbhai Jilubhai Lalu vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12719 Guj

     C/SCA/11690/2021                               ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11690 of 2021
================================================================
                        BHARATBHAI JILUBHAI LALU
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR SAHIL B TRIVEDI, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                  Date : 27/08/2021
                   ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent authorities to give him appointment on compassionate ground in Armed Police Section of Gujarat Police Department, Junagadh, in place of his deceased father, who passed away on 09.04.2000.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present petition, are as under:

2.1 The father of the petitioner was working as a driver with the Armed Section, Police Department, Junagadh district, who passed away on 09.04.2000 leaving behind his family consisting of his widow - Aayaba and three children, including the present petitioner.

2.2 Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner sent a letter on 26.04.2000 to District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh and, inter alia, stated that the petitioner is 16 years old having birth date

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

20.10.1984 and accordingly requested the respondent authority that when the petitioner becomes adult, he may be given job on compassionate ground in place of her husband. After attaining majority, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment, which was forwarded by District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh to his higher authorities. In response to the application, the petitioner was intimated to submit the requisite documents i.e. mark-sheet of 12 Std. along with necessary document of knowledge of computer, if any. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a reply stating, inter alia, that he has not given examination for 12th Std., however, he has given examination for 10th Std. and considering that scenario, he may be given a job on compassionate ground.

2.3 Considering the aforesaid aspect, the District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh sent a letter to the petitioner stating that as the petitioner has not passed 12th Std., he will be given job in Grade-4 i.e. as a Junior Clerk. By a letter dated 02.08.2006 the petitioner was intimated by District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh that his application for compassionate appointment has been forwarded to the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board. On 07.11.2007, the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board addressed a letter to District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh and intimated

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

that the application of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not attended 18 years of age. Accordingly, by a letter dated 24.01.2008 District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh intimated the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was rejected as he has not attained 18 years of age.

2.4 In response to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner sent a communication dated 07.11.2007 to the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board, inter alia, stating that the mother of the petitioner had already requested by a letter dated 23.04.2000 that when the petitioner becomes adult he may be given compassionate appointment and the fact that he was not adult at the relevant point of time, he did not apply and he applied as soon as he became adult. Thereafter, the petitioner completed his Gujarat Secondary Higher Secondary Education and also completed courses on Computer Science and Computer Concepts.

2.5 Again by a letter dated 15.02.2011 the petitioner requested for his appointment on compassionate grounds, wherein, inter alia, he has narrated financial condition of his family after death of his father. It is the case of the petitioner that similar request was made by the petitioner on 12.02.2014, however, till date the application of the petitioner is not considered by

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

the respondent authority and no satisfactory response has been received by the petitioner and hence, the present petition seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was minor, when his deceased mother initially requested for a job on compassionate grounds i.e. in the year 2000 that when the petitioner becomes adult, the petitioner will apply, however, the respondent authority has given frivolous and unjustified reason that the petitioner has not attained majority when he applied for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further submitted that despite serious financial crises, the petitioner completed his 12th Std. and the requisite computer courses to make himself sufficiently qualified for getting an appropriate job on compassionate grounds, however, till date no response has been given by the respondent authority, after he became sufficiently qualified.

4. The prayer made in the petition suggests that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner passed away on 09.04.2000 during service. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh on 26.04.2000

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

i.e. within three months of death of her husband, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is 16 years old having birth date 20.10.1984 and accordingly requested the respondent authority that when the petitioner becomes adult, he may be given job on compassionate ground on the post of her husband and after attaining majority the petitioner applied on 11.07.2003 for such appointment. By a communication dated 07.11.2007 the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for the reason that he was not 18 years old. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.10.1984 and he became major in the year 2002. The petitioner completed his Higher Secondary School Education in 2008. Thereafter, he applied for compassionate appointment on 15.02.2011. Thus, after becoming major in 2002, he did not do anything for 9 years. Thereafter, also he went into slumber and filed an application on 12.02.2014. Again he went into the state of dormancy and filed this petition in 2021. Today, almost 21 years have passed from the death of his father. No policy is produced on record which would suggest that the petitioner would be entitled to compassionate appointment after passage of 21 years.

5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon, A.I.R. 2021 S.C. 1876. The Apex Court, while dealing the claim of the compassionate appointment belatedly, has observed thus:

"8 The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

6. Thus, the Supreme Court has directed that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. It is also reiterated that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim such appointment, as the

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

same is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time by any member in future.

7. It was also requested by the learned Advocate Mr.Thaker that the respondents may be directed to decide the representation dated 12.02.2014 since the same is not yet decided. The request is rejected, as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a passage of 7 years. Any directions to the authorities for deciding such representation would amount to resurrecting a dead issue. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 670 has held thus:

"17. Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the Judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are complex or complicated, and would find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matters to the lower courts not for good reasons. Few Judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move repre- sentations before some authority with a direction to that authority to decide the dispute, which the Judges should have done. Often, causes of action, which oth- erwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the Judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand.

18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an out- come of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based mainly on events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determi- nation when parties demand it so that they can admin- ister justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper applica- tion of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

adduced and application of legal procedure. The par- ties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.

19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends princi- pally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reason- ing is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the Judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence."

Thus, the Apex Court has cautioned for issuance of directions of deciding the parties to make representations. It is also observed that "Often, causes of action, which otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the Judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand." In the present case, the dispute is already dead as the petitioner did not do approach the court of law within a reasonable period and he slept over his rights. Even after making the representation in the year 2014, he did not do any thing and he was not vigilant towards his right. Hence, no directions can be issued to the authorities for directing them to decide his representation.

8. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the present petition appears to be

C/SCA/11690/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

misconceived. The same deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

(A.S. SUPEHIA, J) *** Bhavesh-[PPS]