ARVINDKUMAR N BHATT Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER OF AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice of rule has been served upon the respondents, none has appeared for the respondents. It is also necessary to be mentioned here that at the time of issuing rule on 22nd November, 1991, this Court (Coram : R. K. Abichandani, J.) has passed an order to the effect that the matter be listed for final hearing in February, 1992 and in the meantime, it will be open to the respondents to consider the matter to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Mr. Pardiwala has submitted that in spite of the said order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 1991, the case of the petitioner has not been considered so far by the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Brief facts of the present petition are as under : Father of the petitioner, Mr. Natvarlal Muljibhai Bhatt was serving as police constable in the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He joined the service in the year 1951 and served upto 1969. In the year 1969, on 10th April, 1969, father of the petitioner expired in the civil hospital as he was suffering from cancer. The death certificate has been produced at Annexure "A" to the petition. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he left behind him widowed wife and two sons one of whom is the petitioner before this Court. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, both the brothers were minor, and therefore, financial position deteriorated to the maximum. Over and above that, after the death of the father of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner become lunatic. As a result of this calamity, the petitioner as well as his brother both were admitted in Mahajan Anath Ashram Balashram at Surat. The petitioner stayed there for a period of about 12 years and even passed the S.S.C. Examination from the said Ashram. In respect of the conduct of the petitioner in the Ashram, certificate has been produced on record which was given by the Administrator of the Ashram. According to the petitioner, in the year 1985, the petitioner started correspondence with the respondents requesting them that he may be taken up as a police constable or for any other suitable post on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 1 initially did entertained the prayer and request made by the petitioner to some extent, but ultimately it has not been materialized. The present petition has been filed on the basis of the fact that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in Class-III or Class-IV as per the well-known guidelines issued by the Government vide Circular No. BRT-1084-355-K dated 1st March, 1984. Copy of the said guidelines has also been produced on record by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the first representation dated 10th September, 1985 was tendered to respondent No, 2 and the same was acknowledged and reply was given on 7th October, 1985 that the relevant papers have been transferred to the office of the first respondent and the petitioner was further directed to keep in touch with the first respondent. The petitioner, thereafter, started correspondence with the first respondent. The petitioner had received one letter on 30th October, 1985. Thereafter, series of representations were submitted to the first and second respondent between 30th October, 1985 to 7th November, 1986. All the replies received by the petitioner have been produced on record. According to the petitioner, one letter was addressed by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 in which letter dated 7th November, 1986, the respondent No. 2 has categorically mentioned that taking into consideration the pension as well as the amount of gratuity and the G.P.F., it is fit case in which the petitioner should be given appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner was instructed by letter dated 8th March, 1989 written by the first respondent No. 1 to submit original copies of relevant certificates like death certificate of the petitioner's father etc. The respondent has sent three forms with an instruction to the petitioner to fill up those forms. The petitioner obeyed the said instructions. Thereafter, by letter dated 17th March, 1989 written by the first respondent, the petitioner was intimated to remain present in the office of the first respondent for medical check-up and according to the petitioner, the petitioner did undergo the physical test also. According to the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner went on making representation but of no avail and he and his family are in dire strains and the brother of the petitioner has also recently suffered from acute mental depression ultimately resulting into insanity. Even the mother of the petitioner is also in the same situation since many years and lot of expenses has been incurred in treatment and according to the petitioner, he is badly in need of appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has also pointed out that it is not within the scope of the respondents exercising discretion, but in fact, it is the right of the petitioner which is crystallized upon the petitioner on his attaining the majority However, the respondents have failed in this case to offer compassionate appointment to none of the members of the petitioner's family on the death of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed in this petition to direct the respondent-authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the post of police constable or any other suitable post as the petitioner's educational qualification permits such appointment. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala has submitted that the petitioner has received one letter dated 22nd November, 1988 which is the reply to the application of the petitioner in respect of his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the said reply given by the Deputy Administrative Officer of the first respondent, it is mentioned that the father of the petitioner died on 10th April, 1969 and the Scheme was introduced by the State Government for compassionate employment in October, 1975 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment because the scheme was introduced in October, 1975 when his father has already died on 10th April, 1969, and therefore, all the relevant papers were sent back to the petitioner along with the said letter.

(2.) Though rule has been served upon the respondents, nobody has remained present on behalf of the respondents. Not only that but the respondents have also not chosen to file any affidavit-in-reply to controvert the averments made by the petitioner in the present petition. Therefore, I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. J. B. Pardiwala for the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Pardiwala has relied upon the Government Circular dated 1st March, 1984 wherein it is been provided for giving of appointment on compassionate grounds when a Government servant dies in service and if his family is left in indigent circumstances. Mr. Pardiwala has pointed out from the Scheme that the compassionate appointment of the dependents of the deceased government servant and the project affected persons should be made only in Class-111 or Class-IV or the lowest range in Class-111 post in the departments. He also relied upon the relevant paragraph of the Scheme that there should be no objection in relaxing the age-limit for recruitment in such cases. However, the relaxation in the upper age may not exceed 30 years, beyond that, prescribed in the recruitment rules for the post or age of 45 years whichever is lesser. If the relaxation is required to be made even in the minimum age-limit, such relaxation may be considered if it does not exceed the period of one year below age -limit prescribed in the recruitment rules for the post. No relaxation in the educational qualification should be allowed in compassionate employment. However, when some minimum experience is prescribed or along with certain minimum educational qualification, it may be relaxed. Even in case of minimum marks in the S.S.C. Examination, which might be stipulated by the authority, but it can be relaxed in the case of compassionate employment. It should be established that the family should be in real indigent circumstances and to ascertain such circumstances, amount of monthly income of such family all concerned and irrespective of number of dependents should be not more than 400 rupees per month. This limit has been enhanced by the Government to Rs. 600/- per month with effect from May, 1983. It is also made clear that not more than one person in the family of the deceased Government servant should be given such compassionate appointment. Such person should be son, daughter, wife or husband of the deceased Government servant. In case of extreme hardship requiring immediate help, Secretaries to the Government in the Administration Department will be competent to appoint provisionally pending selection through the procedure prescribed. There should be no unduly long time between the death of the Government servant and the appointment on compassionate grounds. Such compassionate appointment will be permissible within five years after occurrence of death of the Government servant. However, in exceptional cases, in case of a Government servant at the time of his death leaving behind him illiterate widowed wife and minor children, none of whom can be offered employment on compassionate ground, in such cases, period of five years may be relaxed with the concurrence of the General Administration Department. Learned Advocate Mr. Pardiwala has submitted that according to the said Scheme, the case of the petitioner was considered, and it was recommended by the Deputy Director of the first respondent by letter dated 7th November, 1986 after considering the income of the family pension, gratuity, provident fund and the life insurance policy. He has also submitted that even the medical check-up of the petitioner has been completed and the petitioner had undergone such medical test and yet the appointment on compassionate ground has not been offered to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the reply dated 22nd November, 1988 wherein the petitioner's claim has been rejected only on the ground that the Scheme was introduced with effect from October, 1975 whereas his father died on 10th April, 1969, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the said scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. According to him, at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was minor and he became major after 1975; he passed his S.S.C. Examination after staying in the Mahajan Anath Bala Ashram at Surat, and therefore, according to him, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme introduced in October, 1975 for appointment on compassionate grounds because he attained majority after 1975, and thereafter, he has become entitled to the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground, and therefore, the decision which has been taken by the respondent No. 1 is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational.