BHAVIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed against impugned order dtd. 4/1/2015 passed by the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar. By the aforesaid order, the District Development Officer had ordered to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of remaining service tenure in view of Government resolution dtd. 5/7/2011.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is son of deceased employee, viz. Sanatbhai Kanayailal Pandya, who was working as Talati-cum-Mantri and was appointed on 31/1/1985. It is submitted that on 26/8/2010, the father of the petitioner expired while on duty. It is submitted that the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased employee and is his only son. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.2-DDO for getting appointment on compassionate ground on 27/9/2010. It is submitted that the said application was forwarded by respondent No.2-DDO to the office of respondent No.1-Secretary, Panchayat Gram Gruh Nirman & Gram Vikas Vibhag ib 18/6/2011.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the General Administration Department passed resolution dtd. 5/7/2011 based on the report submitted by the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Planning and after considering the representation of stakeholders and considering the question of pending applications too, the Government passed the said resolution. In view of that resolution and in view of the fact that the person who is entitled to have pensionary benefit available has to be paid such monetary compensation and that the widow of the deceased employee has been paid amount of lump sum compensation in terms of that Government resolution. It is submitted that widow of the deceased employee against whom the impugned order is passed has not come before this Court to question the said order and neither she is joined in the present petition and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present petition which is passed in terms of GR dtd. 5/7/2011.