Yatrik Vinodrai Purohit vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 10183 Guj

      C/SCA/1280/2018                                       ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1280 of 2018

==========================================================
                          YATRIK VINODRAI PUROHIT
                                    Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JK HINGORANI(2491) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                Date : 15/12/2022

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment or lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher with the Respondent No.4 - School since 02.09.1985. He expired on 18.07.2002 while on service. In view of death of the father of the petitioner on 18.07.2002, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 03.10.2002 within prescribed time limit

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

of six months. However, at the time of death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor and, therefore, he was not entitled to get compassionate appointment and hence his case could not be considered.

2.2 It is stated in the petition that in the year 2006, the petitioner attained the age of majority and thereafter once again the petitioner preferred an application for compassionate appointment vide application dated 21.01.2006 which was forwarded by respondent school to the Respondent No.3. However, vide order dated 30.09.2008, the Respondent No.2 rejected the aforesaid application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing CCC certificate as per Government Resolution dated 19.11.2004.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2006 the petitioner was holding CCC certificate, however, despite that the case of the petitioner was not considered for compassionate appointment.

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

2.4 Thereafter the petitioner made several requests and representations orally to grant him compassionate appointment but the same were not considered positively by the respondent authorities.

2.5 Pursuant to the Government policy to give some lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment vide Resolution dated 05.07.2011, the petitioner once again approached the respondent school with representation dated 08.08.2013 to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011. However, petitioner did not receive any positive response in respect of the same. After further communication in the year 2016, as the petitioner was not granted benefit of even lumpsum compensation as per Government policy dated 05.07.2011, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3.1 Learned advocate Ms.Hingorani vehemently submitted that the petitioner was minor at the time when father of the petitioner died and attained the majority in the year 2006. On attaining the majority,

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

he applied for compassionate appointment but his application was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the qualification of CCC certificate. She submitted that in fact the petitioner obtained the CCC certificate in October-November, 2006 on successful completion of the course and, therefore, the the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on wrong ground. Actually, grounds put forward by the authority while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the year 2006 was not on the basis of any reason which may justify the rejection for the reason that the petitioner had already obtained CCC certificate in October-November, 2006 and, therefore, the authority committed grave error at the relevant point of time by not extending the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner.

3.2 She further submitted that though the petitioner was eligible and entitled for compassionate appointment in the year 2006 itself by ignoring the fact that the petitioner had obtained CCC certificate,

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

authority rejected his application for compassionate appointment and thereafter even benefit of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per policy dated 05.07.2011 also has not been extended by the Government and, therefore, the action of the Government is contrary to the settled provisions of law and is contrary to the policy framed by the Government for compassionate appoint and, therefore, this Court may direct the Government to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment or lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per Government policy dated 05.07.2011.

4.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Foram Trivedi opposed the petition and pointed out the fact that the petitioner made an application on 28.01.2006 on attaining the age of majority for compassionate appointment. The date on which the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner, the petitioner was not possessing CCC certificate. She pointed out from Page:19, Annexure:D

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

of the petition and submitted that CCC certificate was obtained in October-November, 2006 about which respondent authorities were never informed and, therefore, the respondent authorities considered the position prevailing as on the date of application of the petitioner i.e. on 28.01.2006 as on that date the petitioner was not possessing qualification of CCC certificate, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the authority for which the grievance raised by the petitioner is absolutely misplaced.

4.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Trivedi further submitted that once the petitioner's application was considered and rejected by the Government authority as per Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, the petitioner was not entitled to get any lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as the said GR itself provides that the cases which are already considered once shall not be considered for the purpose of any lumpsum compensation. She further submitted that petitioner's

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

father died in the year 2002 whereas the petitioner's first application for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2008 and thereafter policy for lumpsum compensation was introduced in the year 2011 whereas the present petition is preferred in the year 2018 i.e. almost after the period of 16 years after the father of the petitioner expired and, therefore on the ground of delay also petition is required to be dismissed.

4.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Trivedi also submitted that if a petition preferred in the year 2018 seeking compensation appointment on the basis of death of the father who died in the year 2002 is entertained, in that case, it would frustrate the basic purpose behind scheme of compassionate appointment. Scheme of compassionate appointment, according to learned AGP Ms.Trivedi is provided for providing immediate relief to the family of the deceased. In the instant case, petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment by preferring petition in the year 2018 after 16 years after deceased died and today in the

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

year 2022, after almost 20 years after deceased died and, therefore, if at this juncture, any direction is given to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the same would be contrary to basic intention behind the scheme of the compassionate appointment.

4.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Trivedi further relied upon recent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. (i) in case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd & Ors. vs. Anushree K.B. in Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022 and (ii) in case of The State of Maharasthra & Anr. vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate in Civil Appeal No.6938 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022. By relying upon both these decisions, she submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that after long period after the death of the deceased employee, the applicant who is seeking compassionate appointment shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as the whole object of granting compassionate appointment would be frustrated if the appointment is

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

granted after such a long period.

4.5 By relying upon aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Trivedi prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties, perused the documents on record and considered the judgments cited by learned advocates for respective parties.

6.1 It is an undisputed fact that father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 for which for the first time the petitioner made application for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority in the year 2006 i.e. 28.01.2006. The documents also indicate that the certificate which has been produced by the petitioner indicating that he has cleared CCC examination and the certificate mentions that petitioner successfully completed the training of 80 hours in October-November, 2006 and on the basis of that the certificate has been issued. So it is true that the petitioner has acquired qualification of CCC certificate

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

but the question is whether at the relevant point of time the petitioner communicated the aforesaid details to the respondent authority which was considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment or not. From the record, I do not see anything which would indicate that the respondents were made aware about aforesaid requirement that the petitioner fulfills afterwards after making application and, therefore, at the relevant point of time the authority was justified in rejecting the application dated 28.01.2006 vide communication dated 03.08.2007.

6.2 Further, the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's application for lumpsum compensation for the reason that the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 provides that if case of an applicant for compassionate appointment has already been considered and decided, his case shall not be reopened and shall not be reconsidered and, therefore, the authority was justifying in denying the benefit of lumpsum compensation to the petitioner afterwards as well.

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

6.3 Further, as the petitioner has preferred the petition in the year 2018 and has prayed for compassionate appointment or lumpsum compensation. In this regard, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that petitioner's first application for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2008. Thereafter though the petitioner prayed for benefit of lumpsum compensation by making an application in the year 2013 and since the said application was never decided and petitioner kept making representations and the benefit was actually not passed over to the petitioner , however, the petitioner, without waiting for any further, could have challenged the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondents before wasting any time.

6.4 Today the situation is that though father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 for which seeking compassionate appointment a petition is preferred after period of 16 years and the same is being decided after a period of 20 years. In the interregnum 20 years, the petitioner could survive and is pressing this petition

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

that goes to show that petitioner survived for 20 years even without this compassionate appointment and, therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if compassionate appointment is granted after a long period that would amount to granting compassionate appointment against the basic purpose for compassionate appointment as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. (i) in the cases of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd & Ors. vs. Anushree K.B. (supra) and (ii) in case of The State of Maharasthra & Anr. vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra). Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion as the petitioner's application has rightly been rejected and and as the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment or lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.

6.5 Further, considering the fact that if any direction for compassionate appointment is issued to the State Government or contesting respondent for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, that would be against the basic object for

C/SCA/1280/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

providing compassionate appointment to the deceased's family by providing immediate relief and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.