BHANUBEN BIPINCHANDRA PARMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 09.03.2007 & 29.10.2009 passed by the respondent-authority whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Constable and died in harness on 02.01.2003. On 30.06.2003 the son of the petitioner made an application to the respondent-authority requesting to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent no.2 vide letter dated 04.09.2003 informed the son of the petitioner to submit application of her mother, i.e. the petitioner, as first preference was to be given to the widow of the deceased-employee. Accordingly, the petitioner applied vide letter dated 20.09.2003. However, the said application came to be rejected by respondent no.4 vide order dated 30.06.2005. The petitioner made another application to reconsider her case. However, the same was rejected vide letter dated 09.03.2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the A.D.R.M. of this Court by way of Application No.81/2009. In the said proceedings, the respondent-authority produced the order dated 29.10.2009 informing that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The application of the petitioner requesting to appoint her on compassionate grounds was made on 20.09.2003. However, it appears that the respondent-authority has rejected her application on the basis of the policy which had come into effect after the date of the said application. In other words, the application of the petitioner was not considered on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the relevant point of time. Hence, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the respondent-authority considers the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the policy that was prevailing at the relevant point of time.