Bharatbhai Jilubhai Lalu vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 8949 Guj

     C/LPA/994/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 994 of 2022
                                   In
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11690 of 2021
==========================================================
                    BHARATBHAI JILUBHAI LALU
                                 Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ASSTT. ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO
GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
          and
          HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                          Date : 10/10/2022

                            ORAL ORDER

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

[1.0] By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged an oral order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11690 of 2021 by which the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the captioned petition filed by the present appellant for appointment on compassionate ground since the petition was filed after a period of 21 years.

[2.0] It is an undisputed fact that the father of the present appellant, who was working as a driver with the Armed Section, Police Department, Junagadh District passed away on 09.04.2000. The mother of the appellant herein did make an application dated 26.04.2000 for appointment of the present

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

appellant on compassionate ground to the concerned authority and requested the respondent authority that when the appellant attains the age of majority, he may be given job on compassionate ground in place of her husband. After attaining majority, the appellant moved an application for compassionate appointment in response to which the respondent authority intimated the appellant to submit requisite documents i.e. mark- sheet of 12th Std. alongwith necessary document of knowledge of computer. The appellant replied to the respondent authority that he has not given examination of 12th Std. but has given examination of 10th Std. Ultimately, the request of the appellant for compassionate appointment was rejected vide communication dated 24.01.2008.

[3.0] Considering the above facts and the fact that there is delay and laches on the part of the present appellant in filing the petition, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in rejecting the captioned petition. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 4 onwards which read thus:

"4. The prayer made in the petition suggests that the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner passed away on 09.04.2000 during service. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to District Superintendent of Police, Junagadh on 26.04.2000 i.e. within three months of death of her husband, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is 16 years old having birth date 20.10.1984 and accordingly requested the respondent

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

authority that when the petitioner becomes adult, he may be given job on compassionate ground on the post of her husband and after attaining majority the petitioner applied on 11.07.2003 for such appointment. By a communication dated 07.11.2007 the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for the reason that he was not 18 years old. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.10.1984 and he became major in the year 2002. The petitioner completed his Higher Secondary School Education in 2008. Thereafter, he applied for compassionate appointment on 15.02.2011. Thus, after becoming major in 2002, he did not do anything for 9 years. Thereafter, also he went into slumber and filed an application on 12.02.2014. Again he went into the state of dormancy and filed this petition in 2021. Today, almost 21 years have passed from the death of his father. No policy is produced on record which would suggest that the petitioner would be entitled to compassionate appointment after passage of 21 years.

5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon, A.I.R. 2021 S.C. 1876. The Apex Court, while dealing the claim of the compassionate appointment belatedly, has observed thus:

"8 The whole object of granting compassionate

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

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, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. 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 offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

6. Thus, the Supreme Court has directed that 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

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

family to such source of livelihood. It is also reiterated that the 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 future. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim such appointment, as the same is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time by any member in future.

7. It was also requested by the learned Advocate Mr.Thaker that the respondents may be directed to decide the representation dated 12.02.2014 since the same is not yet decided. The request is rejected, as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a passage of 7 years. Any directions to the authorities for deciding such representation would amount to resurrecting a dead issue. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 670 has held thus:

"17. Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the Judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are complex or complicated, and would find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matters to the lower courts not for good reasons. Few Judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move representations before some authority with a direction to that authority to decide the dispute, which the Judges should have done. Often,

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

causes of action, which otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the Judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand.

18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based mainly on events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.

19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the Judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence."

Thus, the Apex Court has cautioned for issuance of directions of deciding the parties to make representations. It is also observed that "Often, causes of action, which otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the Judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand." In the present case, the dispute is already dead as the petitioner did not do approach the court of law within a reasonable period and he slept over his rights. Even after making the representation in the year 2014, he did not do any thing and he was not vigilant towards his right. Hence, no directions can be issued to the authorities for directing them to decide his representation.

8. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the present petition appears to be misconceived. The same deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected."

[4.0] Even otherwise, present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.

C/LPA/994/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

rendered in Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022 [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that after a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground as the same will be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.

[5.0] Hence, in view of above discussion and in view of settled proposition of law, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.

(A.J. DESAI, J.)

(MAUNA M. BHATT, J.) Ajay