Gujarat High Court
Hemil Jayantibhai Patel vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/LPA/1055/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1055 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16272 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1055 of 2022
==========================================================
HEMIL JAYANTIBHAI PATEL
Versus
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 05/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the
appellant.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order of
learned Single Judge dated 19.1.2022, whereby the claim of
the appellant - petitioner for granting appointment on
compassionate basis came to be negatived.
3. The Special Civil Application was filed by the appellant
with a prayer to direct the respondents to grant appointment
C/LPA/1055/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2023
on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The case put-forth
was inter alia that the father of the petitioner serving as
Helper under the respondent - Uttar Gujarat Vij Company
Ltd., died while on duty on 9.3.2009. He had come into
contact with the live wire.
3.1 It appears that after the death of the father, Special Civil
Suit No.135 of 2010 was instituted before the Civil Court at
Dholka, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, which suit
came to be decreed and the Court granted the compensation,
it was stated, to the extent of Rs.14,20,000/-. The First Appeal
preferred by the Vij Company against the said judgment and
decree failed.
3.2 It was the case of the petitioner that petitioner also
wanted the appointment on compassionate basis, the
authorities were requested by letter dated 28.8.2018 for
giving such appointment, on the ground that the petitioner
was not able to survive after the death of her father and had
been finding difficult to earn the bread. The Executive
Engineer to whom the application was made did not consider
the application on the ground that the litigation was pending.
While assailing the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge, learned advocate for the appellant invited attention of
the court to communication dated 8.10.2018 of the Executive
Engineer, Bavla, in which the application of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment was not considered in light of
GSO-295.
4. In respect of the finding recorded by the learned Single
C/LPA/1055/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2023
Judge that the application seeking the appointment was after
9 years, learned advocate for the appellant tried to submit
that there was no time limit for lodging such application in the
Rules. It was submitted that the aspect mentioned by the
learned Single Judge in respect of amount received by the
petitioner pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court could not
be said to be relevant to the question of granting the
compassionate appointment.
5. While dismissing the petition and the prayer for
compassionate appointment, learned Single Judge inter alia
recorded thus :
"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 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."
5.1 The Court does not find that learned Single Judge has
committed any error in dismissing the petition. It may be true
that as such, the aspect of decree for damages and receipt of
the amount by the petitioner, is not connected with the prayer
in the petition, but it has a definite nexus with the object of
giving appointment on compassionate basis. Once the amount
was received by the petitioner, it could not be said that the
C/LPA/1055/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2023
petitioner was hand-to-mouth and that he suffered in terms of
earning him bread, which may justify the extension of benefit
of compassionate benefit.
6. Even if the above aspect is ignored, there is an
outweighing factor. There is delay of 9 years in seeking the
appointment. The death of the father occurred in the year
2009 and that it was after 9 years, as very succinctly observed
by the learned Single Judge, that the request for giving
appointment on compassionate basis was made in the year
2018. The passage of time itself would frustrate the very
object for which the compassionate appointment is granted.
The very fact that the petitioner has survived all the times, is
disentitled him from seeking any appointment on
compassionate ground.
6.1 The view taken by the learned Single Judge could be said
to be eminently just, proper and legal. No case is made out.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is meritless and is hereby
summarily dismissed.
The Civil Application does not survive in view of the
dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly disposed
of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
