Sunil Laljibhai Rabari vs Anju Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 756 Guj

         C/MCA/320/2020                                  ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 320 of 2020
                               In
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17149 of 2016
===========================================================
                    SUNIL LALJIBHAI RABARI
                             Versus
                         ANJU SHARMA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
          NATH
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
                       Date : 19/01/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the opposite party.

2. The present applicant lost his father on 20.12.1999 and at the relevant time, the applicant was nine years old. The mother of the applicant who had to shoulder responsibility not only of the applicant but two daughters also who were not married, applied for appointment on compassionate basis. At that time, she was informed that as she had completed 45 years, her case would not be considered and it was suggested that the applicant's name may be sponsored. In 2009, the applicant approached the college for compassionate appointment which matter remained pending and finally came to be rejected by the Joint Director, Education, Gandhinagar on 27.10.2015. The said decision was challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 17149 of 2016. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2017 allowed the writ petition,

C/MCA/320/2020 ORDER

quashed the communication dated 27.10.2015 and directed the respondents to positively consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and/or compassionate benefit as per the policy prevalent and pass appropriate orders within three weeks. Thereafter, it appears that there was some confusion and as such, clarification application was filed by the applicant in this Special Civil Application, which was disposed of by order dated 19.06.2019. The learned Single Judge again clarified and held that the case of the petitioner was to be considered for compassionate appointment and/or compassionate benefit as per the policy prevalent and pass necessary orders. In the meantime, the applicant had moved contempt application being Misc. Civil Application No. 1195 of 2018. It was on account of an order passed in the said contempt application on 03.04.2019 that the clarification application had been moved before the writ court. When the directions were not complied with, the present contempt application was filed. Notices were issued by order dated 13.08.2020. Thereafter, the Court has passed detailed orders on 23.09.2020, 05.10.2020, 15.10.2020 and 11.12.2020. But the fact remains that till today, the applicant has not been able to reap the benefits of the judgment of this Court. An affidavit­in­reply has been filed by the Deputy Director at Commissioner of Higher Education, Gandhinagar, stating that the applicant was offered Rs.4 Lacs as compassionate benefit which he declined to accept and further that the applicant would not be entitled to compassionate appointment in view of change in policy of the Government brought out in the year 2011.

3. Prior to 05.07.2011, the policy of the State Government and the relevant rules in that respect were of providing compassionate appointment where an employee died in harness. However, with effect from 05.07.2011, the policy was changed and the provisions for compassionate benefits were introduced. Different slabs were fixed for different categories of employees. The policy of 05.07.2011 is to be

C/MCA/320/2020 ORDER

applicable from 05.07.2011 to cases from 05.07.2011 that is from 05.07.2011 where the date of death of the employee is 05.07.2011 or thereafter. With respect to the employees who have died prior to 05.07.2011, their dependents were entitled to compassionate appointment under the policy existing and prevalent at the time of death of the employee. This is also well settled by now. But, despite the same and despite repeated orders by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench that the policy prevalent at the relevant time may be applied for extending the benefits, the opposite parties have still not extended the benefits. Thus, prima facie, the opposite parties are in contempt. Let the officers posted on the post held by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 as described in the memo of the application to remain present before this Court on the next date for framing of charges through virtual mode.

4. Let this matter be listed on 12.02.2021. It would however be open to the opposite parties to ensure compliance in the meantime and file an affidavit of compliance before this Court and also tender their explanation for non­compliance so far. Whatever be the case or status, the direction for personal appearance would remain intact.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

cmk