PRADHUMANSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged oral order dtd. 20/06/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10782 of 2022, by which, learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition and upheld the order dtd. 06/12/2019 passed by District Panchayat, Bhavnagar, by which, it has been held that the appellant would not be entitled for any lumpsum compensation provided under Government Policy dtd. 05/07/2011 issued by General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat on the ground that application filed by his mother for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in the year 2006 and application filed by the appellant was rejected on 12/08/2008.

(2.) Short facts, arising from the record, are as under: That father of the appellant was working as a Work Assistant, Class-III employee in Sub-Division of Irrigation Department of Mahuva, District : Bhavnagar from 04/09/1992. His father passed away during his service tenure on 24/05/2004. Thereafter, mother of the appellant filed an application for compassionate appointment on 16/06/2004, under the old Policy of Government dtd. 10/03/2000. The authority vide order dtd. 14/08/2006, rejected the application of mother of the appellant on the ground of inadequate qualification. After attaining majority, the appellant made another application for compassionate appointment on 19/03/2008, which was rejected by the authority on 12/08/2008. Both the orders were not immediately challenged by the appellant. However, at a belated stage, the appellant has filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6458 of 2016, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 07/02/2019, which was challenged by the appellant before learned Division Bench by way of filing an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.803 of 2019. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, State Government issued another policy dtd. 05/07/2011 and therefore, the co-ordinate bench disposed of the appeal directing the authority to consider the case of the appellant under the new policy of 2011, vide order dtd. 08/04/2019. The respondent authority has passed impugned order dtd. 06/12/2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10782 of 2022, which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr.M.A.Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the authority as well as learned Single Judge have committed an error in appreciating the policy of 2011. He would submit that the case of the appellant cannot be considered at par under Clause 6 of the aforesaid Policy, in view of the fact that his case was never rejected for lumpsum amount and therefore, Division Bench asked the authority to reconsider his case under the said policy. He therefore, would submit that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the authority may be directed to consider the case and pay the compensation as per service tenure of his father. Mr.Parekh, learned advocate for the appellant has taken us through the decision dtd. 09/02/2016 rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of Rekhaben WD/O Raisingbhai Vasava V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.5171 of 2015 as well as judgement relied upon by learned Single Judge in the case of Canara Bank V/s. M.Mahesh Kumar reported in 2015(7) SCC 412, he would submit that since the appellant is not seeking any compassionate appointment, his case can be considered for lumpsum amount, as provided under the said policy. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed.