Hemil Jayantibhai Patel vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 651 Guj

      C/SCA/16272/2019                                   ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16272 of 2019

==========================================================
                             HEMIL JAYANTIBHAI PATEL
                                      Versus
                         UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISARG N TRIVEDI(6144) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                 Date : 19/01/2022

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Nisarg N. Trivedi, learned advocate for

the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R Dave, learned advocate for

the respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the

respondent authorities to grant appointment on

compassionate ground in accordance with law.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the son of

the deceased employee who was working as a Helper in

the Gujarat Electricity Board. On 9.3.2009, when he alone

C/SCA/16272/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022

with the other employees of the Board were carrying out

repair work of the electricity line in Dholka Rural Sub

Division, the petitioner's father came into contact with

the live wire and as a result thereof, the father of the

petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner, mother and

a younger brother. Special Civil Suit No.135 of 2010 was

filed before the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Dholka seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. By

judgment and decree dated 3.4.2018, the suit was

decreed with a direction to the Electricity Company to

pay compensation of Rs.14,20,000/-. It appears that the

petitioner awaited for the outcome of the Civil Suit and

only thereafter applied for appointment on compassionate

ground. By the impugned communication, the company

appears to have rejected the same on the ground that the

amount is yet not withdrawn before the Civil Court and

till such Purshis of withdrawal is filed, the case of the

petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on

compassionate ground.

4. Mr. Nisarg Trivedi, learned counsel for the

C/SCA/16272/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022

petitioner would submit that admittedly on the death of

the father, the family was left without financial resources.

They reasonably awaited till 2018 and now when the

compensation is awarded, insistence for withdrawing

such compensation is being done and in absence of such

withdrawal, non-consideration of the case of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment is contrary to

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India

Limited reported in 2000(6) SCC 493, wherein, it has

been held that mere pensionary benefits are no substitute

to appointment on compassionate ground.

5. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the

respondent - Vij Company taking the Court through the

affidavit-in-reply would submit that there is an undue

delay on the part of the petitioner to seek appointment on

compassionate ground after the death of his father in the

year 2009; after more than 9 years only in the year 2018

that the petitioner has prayed for appointment on

compassionate ground. The delay itself would therefore

C/SCA/16272/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022

frustrate the object of the appointment. Even otherwise,

the decree in favour of the petitioner for an amount of

Rs.14,20,000/- with 6% interest was passed and when

the judgment was challenged before the High Court, the

amount has been apportioned in three equal portions, the

mother, the petitioner and the son and since the

petitioner and the brother were minor, the amount was

required to be invested in Fixed Deposit. Since now the

petitioner has become major, the amount is required to

be disbursed. Obviously therefore, it cannot be said that

the family is in a destitute condition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

advocates for the respective parties, what is evident

therefore is that for the death of the father which

occurred in the year 2009, it is not proper for the

petitioner to have awaited till the year 2018; 9 years after

the death for appointment on compassionate ground.

Even otherwise, now, by virtue of the compensation that

the petitioner and family are entitled as is evident from

the affidavit-in-reply that amount of Rs.21,95,837/- will be

C/SCA/16272/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2022

payable to the petitioner, the family thereof, it cannot be

said that the action of the respondent in denying

appointment on compassionate ground is bad. On the

twin grounds of delay and also on sufficient compensation

having been received by the family, it is not the case

where the petitioner's case for appointment on

compassionate ground deserves to be considered.

7. In view of above, the petition deserves to be

dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order

as to costs. Notice is discharged.

[ BIREN VAISHNAV, J. ] VATSAL S. KOTECHA