JAGABHAI RAMJIBHAI RATHOD Vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his deceased father as per the applications dtd. 30/10/2003 and 10/6/2004 submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the impugned communications/decisions dtd. 11/7/2008 and 31/7/2010 be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Yadav for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Khubchandani for the respondent no.1.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was working as watchman with respondent-board and he passed away on 7/9/2003 while in service. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application dtd. 30/10/2003 to the respondent Board by Registered Post A.D. and requested that he may be appointed on compassionate ground as per the policy framed by the state government vide G.R. dtd. 7/9/2002. It is submitted that the petitioner has not received the said communication. However, the petitioner is having receipt of Registered Post A.D. It is further submitted that the petitioner again submitted application dtd. 10/6/2004 to the respondent board along with necessary form in prescribed format. However, the petitioner received communication dtd. 17/11/2005 from the respondent no.2 asking for necessary documentary evidence. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner therefore submitted necessary documents to the respondent authority. However, thereafter, the petitioner received communication dtd. 11/7/2008 from the concerned respondent authority. In the said communication, it is stated that the application dtd. 10/6/2004 submitted by the petitioner is time barred considering the government resolution dtd. 7/9/2002 and therefore his application is not entertained. The petitioner, thereafter submitted another application dtd. 7/7/2009 to the respondent board and pointed out that in fact, the petitioner submitted an application on 30/10/2003 within the period of limitation as per the said government resolution. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted compassionate appointment. Another representation was made by the petitioner on 7/7/2010, however, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to dispatch slip of Registered Post A.D., copy of which is placed on record at page no.20. It is submitted that on 30/10/2003, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent and the same was sent by Registered Post A.D. However, the petitioner has not received acknowledgment slip. Therefore, once the application is dispatched, it is deemed to have been served to the respondent. Thus, the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation is not tenable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter submitted another application in the year 2004 in the prescribed format and with necessary details. However, the said application is rejected vide communication dtd. 11/7/2008 on the ground that the said application is submitted after a period of six months. Learned advocate has referred the government resolution dtd. 7/9/2002 issued by the state government. Learned advocate, thereafter, submitted that the respondent authority is required to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per the aforesaid policy and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in submitting application. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted application within a period of three months after the death of his father. Learned advocate, therefore urged that the impugned communication be set aside and thereby appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits.