STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JADEJA DHARMENDRASINH JAYENDRASINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals is preferred from common and similar oral orders dated 18.8.2011 of learned single Judge of this Court in SCA Nos.11368 of 2011, 11744 to 11771 of 2011, 11121 of 2011 and 11732 to 11742 of 2011, whereby the appellants herein were directed to consider the applications for compassionate appointment of the original petitioners on the basis of the policy which was prevailing at the relevant time, when the employee concerned had expired. Learned single Judge further directed to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the policy which was prevailing at the relevant time when the employee expired, within a period of three months. With such observations and directions, the petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.

(2.) Learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the impugned order was apparently made without reference to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State Bank of India & Another v. Raj Kumar, 2010 11 SCC 661 and the subsequent development which had taken place before the impugned order in the form of new Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which superseded the then existing scheme for giving compassionate appointment to members of dependent families of those Class-III and Class-IV employees who died while in service. Relying upon that resolution dated 05.07.2011, it was pointed out that not only that the existing scheme for compassionate appointment was abolished, but a provision was clearly made in the resolution itself for disposal of all the pending applications for compassionate appointment as per the new scheme. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India , it was pointed out that the facts in the present set of cases were similar to the facts before the Supreme Court wherein the employee had died in October 2004, application for compassionate appointment was made in June 2005 and new scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in substitution of compassionate appointment had come into effect on 04.08.2005. Thus, during pendency of the application for compassionate appointment under the then subsisting scheme, the new scheme for lump sum payment was adopted and after consideration of the circumstances, the Court was pleased to make the following observations:

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.M.B.Rana relied upon Division Bench judgment dated 11.5.2010 of this Court in L.P.A.No.22 of 2010 and allied matters to submit that this Court had already taken a view that when applications for compassionate appointment were made and pending before the government for several years, the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the scheme prevailing at the time of making the applications and subsequent development or change in the scheme could not be set up as a defence to defeat the right of the applicants which had accrued at least for consideration of the applications under the then prevailing scheme. Learned counsel also emphasized that that judgment of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court on 19.10.2010 in S.L.P. (Civil) No.31057 of 2010.