LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-26

KINNARIBEN CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 26, 2006
KINNARIBEN CHAMPAKLAL SHAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the competent authority in not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) Shri Champaklal Manilal Shah, father of the petitioner, was in Government service and while in service, he died in an accident on 09.08.1971. On 21.04.1988, i.e. after about 17 years since the death of the aforesaid employee, mother of the petitioner applied for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on 27.07.1988 and the same was communicated to the mother of the petitioner. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner or her mother. It seems that thereafter, after about 5 years from the rejection of the first application, another application was given by the mother of the petitioner on 10.02.1993. The respondent No.2, by his letter dated 17.02.1993 has informed the mother of the petitioner that the request to give appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner had been turned down by the Government and the same had already been communicated to her by letter dated 27.7.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition on 02.03.1993.

(3.) By now, about 35 years have passed since the death of the father of the petitioner. It is also required to be noted that as back as 27.07.1988, mother of the petitioner was informed by the Department that her request for giving compassionate appointment to the present petitioner cannot be granted, and the same was accordingly rejected. Thereafter no attempt was made for chall;enging the said decision and after waiting for about 5 years, another application was preferred by the mother of the petitioner on 10.02.1993 for giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the present petitioner. It seems that the said application was given only with a view to overcome the question of limitation as it can be contended that on rejection of the application, this petition is filed.