NISHAR AHMED ABDUL MIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned A.G.P. appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents.

(2.) The facts of present petition, in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was serving as a Primary Teacher in District Panchayat, Kheda, while in service, died on 28-12-1985. The petitioner as dependent, claimed appointment on compassionate ground under the rules of Government claiming himself to be eligible for the same. State Government, by memorandum dated 13-9-1991 at Annexure-A, accorded its approval of appointment of the petitioner as Jr. Clerk. However, after almost 10 years of the death of employee and even after 31/2 years of sanction by Government, the petitioner has not been offered appointment. Finally, the petitioner has been told by the respondents vide letter dated 19-2-1994 that the authority to appoint is given to the Development Commissioner, respondents cannot * praying for direction to the Government to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and etc. do anything in the matter and advised the petitioner to approach Development Commissioner.

(3.) I have no hesitation to state here that the respondents have, in the present case, clearly acted in derogation of and to defeat clearly the objectives for attainment of which policy of appointing dependents of Government employee who died while in service on compassionate grounds de hors rules of regular selection. The clear objective for granting such reliefs is to mitigate immediate hardships caused to the griefed family on account of death of bread-earner. If such appointments are delayed for indefinite period on the spacious ground of administrative exigencies the very purpose of such policy will fail. It is a case in which State Government has first taken 6 years time to come to a decision whether the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be offered job under rules governing such cases and even after finding his case governed by that, the petitioner is yet asked to run from pillar to post for getting appointment order. In this connection, it will be relevant to recall the observations made by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in a decision in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 as under :-