ASHOKBHAI MOHANBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the communication dated 26.11.2010, issued by respondent No.3, the Regional Transport Officer, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has further challenged the communication dated 23.02.2012, issued by the office of respondent No.2, Commissioner of Transport, whereby, the application of the petitioner for the grant of lumpsum financial aid, has been rejected.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon under respondent No.2, died while in service on 16.12.1993. At that point of time, the petitioner was a minor, being only three years' old. According to the petitioner, his mother approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, she was told that as she is illiterate and her son was then a minor, she should make an application when the petitioner attains majority. Even before attaining the age of majority, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment which was returned to him on the ground that it should be made in the prescribed format. Thereafter, the petitioner made another application dated 01.08.2008, after attaining majority. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 17.07.1990, and he attained majority on 17.07.2008. By a communication dated 12.05.2009, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that his application has been filed as it ought to have been made within the prescribed time limit by any family member who was a major at the time of the death of the employee, as per Clauses 8(a) and (b) of the Government Resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002. It was also stated in the said communication that there was no provision to wait till a minor family member attains majority. The petitioner was asked to furnish certain details by respondent No.3 as per the communication dated 02.07.2010, which he did. By the impugned communication dated 26.11.2010, issued by respondent No.3, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that as per the policy of 1997, if the widow is illiterate, the son or daughter has to make an application within two years of attaining majority. The sister of the petitioner, who had attained majority prior to the petitioner, had not made an application.