Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Thro The Under ... vs Surendrasinh Narayansinh Chavda on 8 July, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya, Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/591/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 591 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16075 of 2011
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO THE UNDER SECRETARY
Versus
SURENDRASINH NARAYANSINH CHAVDA
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP (1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS UTPALA S BORA(3783) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 08/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Admit. Ms. Utpala Bora, learned advocate waives
for respondent. With consent of learned advocates,
the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in SCA No. 16075 of 2011, the
State and its authorities have preferred this appeal
under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. The following facts are noteworthy -
3.1 That the father of the respondent was working as
an Assistant Sub Inspector with Gujarat Police and he
died on 07.06.2010. The respondent who possesses
degree of MA Part-I, filed an application for
C/LPA/591/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021
compassionate appointment on 03.08.2010. It is a
matter of record that in the year 2011, the appellant
State Government came up with new policy of
compassionate appointment vide Resolution dated
05.07.2011. The petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment which was denied and therefore, the
petitioner preferring writ petition seeking writ of
mandamus directing the authorities to give
compassionate appointment.
3.2 Various contentions were raised before the
learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by
the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the
policy prevailing at the time of death of the
employee is required to be applied while dealing with
the case of compassionate appointment and was of the
opinion that the said aspect has attained finality in
number of decisions of this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The contention raised by the
appellant that payment of General Provident fund,
Gratuity and Leave Encashment etc. to the family of
the deceased after the said demise was considered
rightly so as not as reward or bounty. However, the
learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the
petition and was pleased to hold the respondent
entitled to compassionate appointment on immediate
next vacancy available, however, if otherwise found
suitable. The said judgment is under challenge in
this appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the other observations
C/LPA/591/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021
made by the learned Single Judge, we are in
disagreement with the observations made by the
learned Single Judge that the issue is well settled.
The learned Single Judge has failed to take into
consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State Bank of India and Anr Vs.
Rajkumar reported in 2010 (11) SCC 661 and the
reference be made to the latest judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex in the case of N.C. Santhosh Vs. Sate of
Karnataka and Ors. Reported in 2020(7) SCC 617,
wherein it is held that the policy as prevailing on
the date of consideration of the appointment on
compassionate ground is to be applied and taken into
consideration while deciding the application.
5. Ms. Utpala Bora, learned advocate appearing for
the respondent on advance copy contended that the
respondent-original petitioner is ready and willing
to forego the prayers which are prayed for in the
writ petition and is ready and willing to accept the
lumpsum compensation as provided in the Government
Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
6. It deserves to be noted that the appellants also
have relied upon clause 5 of the said scheme
enunciated in Resolution dated 05.07.2011 and has
contended before us that as per the new policy
implemented vide Government Resolution dated
05.07.2011, the respondent would be entitled to only
lumpsum compensation.
7. In light of the aforesaid, the Letters Patent
C/LPA/591/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021
Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order
dated 11.09.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The impugned order is modified as under. The
appellants are directed to consider the application
of the petitioner de novo as per the provisions of
the Resolution dated 05.07.2011 and grant lumpsum
compensation to the respondent. Such exercise shall
be undertaken within a period of three months from
today. As the appeal is disposed of, connected Civil
Application, if any, would also not survive and shall
stand disposed of.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
