Gujarat High Court
Damore Alpeshbhai Bhagubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 22 December, 2021
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/LPA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8492 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2021
==========================================================
DAMORE ALPESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(3283) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS URMILA DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 22/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)
By way of present LPA under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, the appellant-original writ petitioner has challenged
the order dated 26/07/2021 passed in SCA No.8492 of 2021;
whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition
seeking quashing and setting aside the communication dated
19/08/2020 issued by the respondent-authority refusing to
grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.1 as per
Government Resolution dated 10/03/2000.
2. It appears that the father of the appellant No.1 passed
away on 07/12/2007 during the service. It is not in dispute that
elder son of deceased employee viz., Mr.Alkesh had applied for
compassionate appointment on 05/03/2008 to the office of the
respondent as per circular dated 10/03/2000 and at relevant
C/LPA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2021
point of time, he was the only major son and 9 th standard pass;
however the said application came to be rejected by the
respondent-authorities. Thereafter, after attaining majority,
petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment vide
application dated 11/01/2016; however by communication
dated 19/08/2020, the respondent-authority rejected the claim
of the petitioner No.1 seeking compassionate appointment for
financial assistance.
2.1 Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has
preferred SCA No.8492 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge
after considering the submissions made at bar and considering
the pleadings and law applicable to the facts of the case
observed in paragraph 6 and 7 which reads thus:
"6. Thus, the very first claim made by the brother of petitioner no.1, elder son
of petitioner no.2, Alkesh was already rejected on the ground that he did not
possess the requisite qualification of S.S.C. as per the notification dated
16.03.2005. The said decision was accepted by the elder son and the
petitioner no.2, since it was not challenged before any forum. It is also not
disputed that the sister of the petitioner no.1 was std.10 pass, but she did not
apply. Thereafter, the present petitioner applied in the year 2016, after
becoming major. The scheme of compassionate appointment introduced vide
Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 was replaced by lump sum
financial assistance scheme vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
Thus, the petitioners have interpreted the scheme of compassionate
appointment as if a government post is required to be reserved for any one
family member of the deceased employee and if one member does not get,
the other will claim the same. None of the schemes provide for such
eventuality. The scheme does not state that in case one family member is
found to be ineligible, and the other family member can apply and claim it.
The scheme of compassionate appointment prescribes that any one family
member, who is eligible at the time of death of deceased employee should
apply. In the instant case, the elder son applied, who was not found eligible,
and hence the subsequent application of any of the other member cannot be
considered, as the same will frustrate the object of both the schemes. The
petitioners cannot claim lumpsum compensation of the subsequent scheme,
since the case for compassionate appointment of his elder brother was
already rejected.
7. The application of the petitioner no.1 has been filed by him on 11.01.2016,
after a period of 9 years of the demise of his father. At this stage, it would be
apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case
of appropriate to incorporate the observations of the Supreme Court in the
C/LPA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2021
case of Central Coalfields Limited through its 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 signficant lapse of time and after
the crisis is over."
3. We have heard learned Advocate Mr.K D Pandya for the
appellant at length.
4. It appears that after rejection of the application made by
elder son of the deceased employee, petitioner No.1 moved an
application seeking compassionate appointment as per
application dated 11/01/2016. It is a matter of fact that the
elder son of the deceased employee has not challenged the
order of rejection of his application. The father of petitioner
No.1 expired on 07/12/2007; whereas petitioner No.1 claims
for compassionate appointment on the basis of the GR dated
10/03/2000 which was not applicable at the time of demise of
father of petitioner No.1 and therefore, the said GR can never
be made basis to claim any compassionate appointment.
5. Apart from it; learned Advocate for the appellant could
C/LPA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2021
not point out that scheme applicable to the facts of the present
case provide for any eventuality that if application of one of
the member of the deceased employee is rejected; the other
family member of the said deceased family like the petitioner
No.1 can seek compassionate appointment. The scheme which
is relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant
provides that one of the family member of the deceased
employee who is found to be eligible at the time of death of
the deceased employee would apply for compassionate
appointment. However, on the case on hand, the elder
member of the deceased employee had already applied for
compassionate appointment and being not found eligible his
application was rejected and therefore, by way of subsequent
application, the other family member of deceased employee
cannot be permitted to apply for compassionate appointment
and that too after a lapse of about nine years.
6. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and the for reasons
assigned by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any
merits in the appeal, as also no impropriety or illegality is
found in the impugned order both on law as well as on facts
and the appeal being devoid merits is dismissed at the
admission stage.
In view of dismissal of appeal, connected civil application
would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(S.H.VORA, J)
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
sompura
