Ramilaben D/O Raisangh Mohanbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 993 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ramilaben D/O Raisangh Mohanbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2024

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/LPA/1157/2018                       ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

                                                                            undefined




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1157 of 2018

     In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13651 of 2015

=============================================
RAMILABEN D/O RAISANGH MOHANBHAI PARMAR W/O PRAVINBHAI
                         SINDHA
                         Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI TRIVEDI for MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                       Date : 06/02/2024

                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the original petitioner assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil application No. 13651 of 2018.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the appellant was to direct the respondents to immediately give job to the petitioner on compassionate ground since elder brother of the petitioner had expired without having been appointed in place of her late father.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

3. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is not entitled since the provisions under GSO-295 do not take in their fold claim for compassionate appointment by married daughter and do not contemplate that married daughter would fall within purview of "dependent child or spouse" of the deceased employee.

3.1 It was further observed that as the petitioner stays at her matrimonial house with her husband who maintains the family, which includes the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be considered dependent member of the family of the deceased employee. It is this direction, which is challenged in this appeal.

4. The background of the facts which has led to the writ petition before the Court is that father of the petitioner, Shri Raisangbhai Mohanbhai Parmar was working as Senior Khalasi in the Turbine Section of respondent no.2. On 09.02.1997, Shri Raisangbhai Mohanbhai Parmar passed away. The family of the deceased Raisangbhai consisted of his son Shri Vijaybhai and three daughters.

4.1 After death of Shri Raisangbhai Mohanbhai Parmar, his son Vijaybhai Raisangbhai Parmar made application for appointment on compassionate ground. The application of Shri Vijaybhai was approved on the post of Gardener. However, his actual appointment was wait-listed in the seniority list for compassionate appointment.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

4.2 Pending the appointment, maintenance compensation was given to the family of the deceased. On 11.06.2006, Shri Vijaybhai Raisangbhai Parmar also passed away. After a gap of one year from the death of Shri Vijaybhai, the present petitioner, being married daughter of Raisangbhai and sister of Vijaybhai applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 12.06.2007. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 29.10.2007. Such rejection of the application of the petitioner was never challenged and the order has attained finality.

4.3 Almost after a gap of 8 years, in the year 2015, the petitioner communicated to the respondent authority to grant compassionate appointment on the ground that compassionate appointment can be given to the married daughter of the deceased employee. The application was not considered by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil application No. 13651 of 2018. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, rejected the petition of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani for respondent no.1 and Ms. Trivedi for Mr. Dipak Dave for respondent 2.

5.1 It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. Tejas

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

Satta for the appellant that appellant being the married daughter of the deceased employee, cannot be a ground for rejection of her application. The appellant being a daughter, was part of the family of the deceased employee as defined under GSO-295. Therefore, the petitioner being daughter of the deceased employee, ought to have been considered on the post for compassionate appointment.

5.2 It was further contended by learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant-petitioner's father passed away in the year 1997. After his death, the petitioner's brother applied for compassionate appointment. However, he was never given compassionate appointment. He was wait-listed in the seniority list. After his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and therefore, her case ought to have been considered for compassionate appointment.

5.3 To support his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Satta has relied on the following decisions,

(1) In the case of S. Archana v. The Secretary to Government rendered in W.P. No. 3261 of 2021 dated 21.06.2023 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras.

(2) In the case of Chitali Mitra v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., rendered in MAT No. 667 of 2023 dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court (Appellate side).

(3) In the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2015 SCC Online All 6776.

(4) In the case of Anjana Dharmshi Parmar v. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 919 of 2011 dated 07.03.2023.

(5) In the case of Bhuvaneshwari v. Puranik v. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online 3397.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

(6) In the case of The State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apporva Shree & Anr., rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 20166 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021.

5.4 Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Trivedi for Mr. Dipak Dave for respondent no.2 has vehemently argued that the application of the appellant is after long duration and therefore suffers from delay and latches. The employee Shri Raisangbhai Mohanbhai Parmar passed away in the year 1997. Thereafter, the present appellant-original petitioner applied for the post on compassionate appointment in the year 2007. After her application was rejected, she sat tight on the order for almost 8 years. Thereafter, in the year 2015, after 18 years, after passing away of her father and 8 years from the rejection of her first application, she has preferred the petition for compassionate appointment.

5.5 In support of her submissions, she has relied on the following judgment,

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after Marriage Madhuri Santosh Koli) reported in AIR 2022 SC 5176.

6. For considering the controversy in question, some facts which are glaring in nature are required to be perused. The appellant had preferred application for the first time in the year 2007, that is, after one year after passing away of her brother. After rejection of her application, the petitioner sat tight for almost 8 years. The order passed in the year 2007 was never challenged and has attained finality.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

6.1 Further, the second application made by the appellant- original petitioner, was on the ground that even though she has married daughter, she was entitled for compassionate appointment as being daughter of deceased and she would be included in the terms of family as per GSO-295. It would be worth noting that during the year 2006-2007 till the year 2015, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner or the family were suffering from any financial crisis. However, the fact is not controverted that the appellant- original petitioner was living with her husband who was maintaining the family and there was nothing on record to show that the married daughter was dependent of the deceased employee. In such circumstances, the cases as relied by learned advocate Mr. Satta would be different from the factual aspect of the present case.

6.2 It is also worth noting that when the appellant-original petitioner preferred the petition in the year 2015, that is almost after 8 years of making her first application, she was 34 years of age and at present, she would be more than 40 years of age. Therefore, even as per the guidelines as provided in GSO-295, she would not be entitled for compassionate appointment.

6.3 Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and in such cases, compassionate appointment is for pure humanitarian consideration taking

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/1157/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024

undefined

into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7. Therefore, the fact that the appellant is not a dependant, she has sat tight for many years before preferring another application and she has crossed the age as specified by GSO-295 would go against her case. Resultantly, present appeal fails.

8. The present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI