Gujarat High Court
Sukhdevbhai Jeethabhai Vaghera ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/10348/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10348 of 2021
================================================================
SUKHDEVBHAI JEETHABHAI VAGHERA S/O DECD. JETHABHAI
PUNABHAI VAGHERA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 31/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] In the present writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"16(B). The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2019
passed by respondent no.2 and further be pleased to
direct the respondents to forthwith grant
compassionate appointment on any Class-IV post as
per his qualification, in the interest of justice.
(AA) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2019
passed by respondent no.3 and further be pleased to
direct the respondents to forthwith pay lump sum
compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to
the petitioner.
(C) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to forthwith deposit the lump sum amount
of Rs.5 Lakhs before the registry of this Hon'ble
Court, pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition."
[2] The facts of the present case are that the
deceased-father of the petitioner, namely,
Jethabhai Punabhai Vaghera, who was working with
Rajkot Road and Building Department, Sub
C/SCA/10348/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021
Division, Rajkot as a Roller Driver, passed away
during the service on 06.10.2000. Thereafter, it
appears that unusual labler was obtained by the
petitioner on 09.12.2000, from the elder brother
of the petitioner-Sukhdev Jethabhai Vaghera and
his mother-Ramuben Jethabhai Vaghera, that they
have no objection if compassionate appointment is
granted to the petitioner.
[3] It appears that on 18.12.2000, the mother of
the petitioner/wife of the deceased applied for
compassionate appointment and a specific request
was made by her that the present petitioner may
be granted compassionate appointment. The said
application was rejected on 24.09.2004 stating
that such a request is not in consequence with
the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2020. The
petitioner thereafter slept on his rights and
after the scheme of the compassionate appointment
dated 10.03.2000 was replaced the scheme of grant
of lump sum compensation vide Circular dated
05.07.2011, the petitioner thereafter approached
to grant the lump sum compensation and made the
representation dated 15.02.2019.
[4] The afore-noted facts would suggest that the
father of the petitioner passed away on
06.10.2000, a no objection was taken from the
mother and brother of the petitioner for claiming
C/SCA/10348/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021
compassionate appointment, which is de hors
provision of the scheme of the Compassionate
Appointment as per the Government Resolution
dated 10.03.2000. Accordingly, a communication
was also issued by the respondent authorities on
24.09.2004. The scheme of the compassionate
appointment was also replaced in the year 2011
and after all these years, the petitioner all of
sudden woke up from his slumber in the year 2019
claiming compassionate appointment and lump sum
compensation. It is not in dispute that the
communication dated 24.09.2004 was never
challenged either by the mother of the petitioner
or by the petitioner.
[5] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central
Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and
Managing Director & Ors. vs. Smt. Parden Oraon
reported in AIR (2021) SC 1876, 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. 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
C/SCA/10348/2021 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021
offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons
given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to
the respondent's son are no justified. There is no bar in the
National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an
employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because
the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied
compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the
National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the respondent's
husband is missing since 2002. two sons of the respondent who are
the dependents of her husband as per the records, are also shown
as dependents of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was
any financial crisis created immediately after respondent's
husband went missing in view of the employment of the
respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the
relief sought by the respondent are not sustainable, we are
convinced that the respondent's son cannot be given
compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application
for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the
respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the
respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of
compassionate appointment for providing immediate succour to
the family of the deceased employee, the respondent's son is not
entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long
period of time since his father has gone missing."
[6] Thus, the present petition is a hopelessly
time barred and as observed by the Supreme Court,
the object of compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to get over the financial
crisis that is faced at the time of death of sole
breadwinner and such compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed or offered after a significant
lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
[7] Under the circumstances, the present writ
petition is meritless and hence, the same is
rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
