Kalidas Dahyabhai Rathod vs Chairman Director Manager(Cdm)
2021 Latest Caselaw 6255 Guj

     C/SCA/22359/2017                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22359 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI                  Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER               Sd/-

================================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                     KALIDAS DAHYABHAI RATHOD
                               Versus
              CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR MANAGER(CDM) & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MARIYA M DALAL(3957) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JOY MATHEW(448) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
          and
          HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                              Date : 17/06/2021
                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

1. By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

C/SCA/22359/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021

"32. The petitioner, therefore, prays that: A. This petition be admitted and allowed. B. By exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dt.31.5.2017 passed in Original Application No.682 of 2016 passed by Hon.Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, whereby Hon.Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and further Your Lordship be pleased to allow the said Original Application No.682 of 2016 by directing the Respondent authority to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. C. Till the final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to give any fresh appointment to any candidate on compassionate ground.

D. Any other relief that may be deemed just, proper and necessary may also be kindly granted."

2. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply dated 21.3.2018, whereas affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner on 8.10.2018 annexing judgment dated 9.1.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1982 of 2017.

3. The claim put forward by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is that though he is having sufficient points for such appointment, the authority has refused by not calculating certain marks. In support of his contention, several documents have been produced by the petitioner.

4. The main contention raised by the respondent in the affidavit in reply is of delay in filing the petition. However, the respondent has no answer to the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 9.1.2018 in the case of Rafique Shafique Ansari v. Chaiman Direct Manager (CDM)

C/SCA/22359/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021

passed in Special Civil Application No.1982 of 2017, by which the petitioner has raised contention that similarly situated person was considered by this Court and the respondent was directed to appoint such person on compassionate ground.

5. Mr.Mathew would submit that since last several years no new appointments have been made in the respondent department and there is complete ban on appointment of any person on compassionate ground and, therefore, the respondent would not be able to recruit the petitioner at this stage. He further stated that number of employees have opted for voluntary retirement in view of the fact that the respondent is unable to pay salary to its employees.

6. In view of above position, without going into the detailed discussion and since the claim is not seriously opposed by the respondent that facts of the present case are different from the case decided by Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that the petition requires consideration. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as and when the ban imposed by the respondent itself for appointment on compassionate ground is lifted. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Sd/-

(A.J.DESAI, J)

Sd/-

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) R.S. MALEK