PRAVINBHAI HAMIRBHAI GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original petitioner who had preferred petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the decisions dated 21.2.2009 and 8.9.2006 taken by the respondent No. 1 refusing to grant the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has also sought direction to the respondents to consider and grant his application for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

(2.) LEARNED Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2006 and again such request was rejected in the year 2009. However, the petitioner approached the Court against the above decision after a period of three years for which no explanation was provided. Observing that the policy of providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship due to death of breadwinner in the family, the learned Judge found that the petition was devoid of merit on the ground of delay in approaching the Court.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gogia for the appellant submitted that earlier application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification for appointment on Class -IV post. However, subsequently, when the appellant acquired such qualification in the year 2008, the appellant again made application on 16.7.2008 but the said application was not accepted on the ground that earlier order refusing to accept the proposal for compassionate appointment was not required to be changed. Mr. Gogia submitted that such decision was in fact contrary to the very purpose and object of the policy providing for compassionate appointment. Mr. Gogia submitted that the application of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the policy prevailing then and the policy was of 2002 as per which the appellant was eligible to be appointed on Class -IV post. Mr. Gogia submitted that subsequently change in the rules for qualification for Class -IV post would not dis -entitle the appellant from claiming appointment on compassionate ground under the old policy. Mr. Gogia submitted that delay in approaching this Court will not defeat the right under the policy which was a kind of benevolent policy of the State Government. Mr. Gogia submitted that as per the settled principle of law, the application of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the old policy. He thus urged to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.