RAJENDRA DAHYABHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 7/9/11/2012 passed by the Assistant Director i.e. respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no.3') whereby, the application of the petitioner seeking lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) Tersely stated are the facts:

(3.) Upon issuance of the notice, the respondent no. 3 has filed his reply. The averment made by the petitioner that application was rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of No objection certificate by the brother, is denied. It is emphatically stated that the application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to claim lump sum compensation as per the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. While further elaborating, it is stated that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was married and was not eligible to claim family pension as per clause (ii) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 91 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules'), read with condition no. 3(3) of the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. That the petitioner was not eligible and entitled for the lump sum compensation inasmuch as, the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Government Resolution dtd. 5/7/2011. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is bereft of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.