NATHIBHAI NANJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. GUJARAT AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the original plaintiff who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 223/2003 seeking direction against the respondents to give compassionate appointment to her with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE appellant carried the matter before the First Appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010. Learned Appellate Judge also found that the notification of Government of Gujarat dated 10th March 2000 for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment was not applicable to the dependent of the daily wager and the scheme framed dated 2nd March 2001 by the respondents was for the purpose of conferring permanent benefit to the Rojamdar and the same would not be applicable for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment. Learned Appellate Judge also observed that the said scheme came into force after the husband of the plaintiff had already passed away and on the relevant date as per the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated 10th March 2000 the plaintiff was not entitled to compassionate appointment. Learned Appellate Judge thus concurred with the finding and conclusion recorded by the learned trial judge, and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 8th January 2011. It is this judgment and decree passed by the Learned Appellate Judge which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Hardik Shah for the appellant submitted that though the husband of the plaintiff was a daily rated sweeper but by virtue of order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 727/1997, the husband of the plaintiff was getting minimum time scale and because of such minimum time scale the husband of the plaintiff had already acquired status as permanent employee. Mr Shah learned advocate further pointed out that the husband of the plaintiff already completed 10 years of service as daily wager and as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 691/2001 to 693/2001, when the respondents have already framed scheme and as per the scheme the husband of the plaintiff was entitled to be absorbed as regular employee but unfortunately before the scheme could be introduced, he expired in the year 2000. If the husband of the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to the benefit of the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and consequently as per the scheme framed by the respondent, simply because the scheme came to be framed after the death of the husband, would not be a ground to deny the benefits of regular employment to the husband of the plaintiff as he had worked with the respondents like regular employee for all purposes and the husband having worked with the respondent for long period of time, the plaintiff could not be denied the benefit of compassionate appointment. He therefore submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts below are wrong construction of Government Resolution dated 10th March 2000 and on wrong interpretation of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of the scheme framed after the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order.