JAGDISHBHAI AMRUTBHAI PATEL Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the denial of the consideration of petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) The petitioner's father was serving as mechanic under the respondent corporation and while being in service he expired on 27.1.1991. The petitioner has come with the case that his mother had informed the respondents vide letter dated 20.7.1991 that the case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on his attaining majority. The petitioner passed the new S.S.C. Examination in March, 1993 and moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 27.9.1993. The petitioner is born of 24.11.1973 and he attained the majority on 24.11.1991. On receipt of the petitioner's application dated 27.9.1993, the respondent corporation called for additional details from the petitioner vide their letter dated 22.12.1993, and thereafter his application was filed on 8.3.1994 by the Corporation on the ground that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was major and he has applied after two years. The petitioner made further representation and the Corporation sent reply dated 14.2.1995 stating therein that at the time of petitioner's father's death he was of 17 years 2 months and 3 days and had he moved application at that time, same could be considered but the petitioner has filed the application after the expiry of the limit of one year from the date of attaining majority and the same could not be entertained in view of the procedure adopted for the purpose of the Corporation. The petitioner made further representation on 15.7.1996 and the Corporation has sent reply dated 19.2.1997 reiterating their earlier stand and specifically it is mentioned that the petitioner has filed application after a period of 10 months and 3 days from the date of his attaining majority and therefore, it could not be entertained according to the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation for the purpose. In the affidavit-in-reply dated 26.8.1997 filed on behalf of the Corporation, the fact as alleged by the petitioner that his mother had informed the respondent corporation vide her letter dated 20.7.1991 to consider petitioner's case when he attains the majority was not denied. However, on 8.9.1997 time was granted to the petitioner if he has any acknowledgment due receipt in token of the fact that such an application had been received by the Corporation, and also to the Corporation to come out with the definite case as to whether such application had been received by the Corporation or not. The petitioner has today stated that no such acknowledgment due receipt is available with the petitioner and the Corporation has now denied the receipt of such an application and an affidavit dated 10.9.1997 to this effect has been filed. In such circumstances, the question as to whether the petitioner's mother had in fact sent the application on 20.7.1991 or not cannot be gone into in these proceedings.

(3.) The only question therefore remains to be considered is as to whether the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rightly discarded by the Corporation on the ground that the petitioner's application dated 27.9.1993 was barred by time because the petitioner had attained the majority on 24.11.1991 and he failed to file the application on or before 24.11.1992 and moved this application after a period of more than ten months i.e. in September, 1993. The learned counsel for the Corporation Mr. H.S. Munshaw has submittd that such appointments are to be given in accordance with the rules and regulations and the procedure prescribed by the Corporation and according to such procedure evolved by the Corporation itself the application has to be made by the dependent of the deceased employee within one year from the date he attains majority. He has also submitted that the applications have to be processed and dealt with in accordance with the procedure evolved by the Corporation itself. Mr. Munshaw has placed strong reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (1) 1996(C) JT Pg. 7. The State of Bihar & Others vs. Samsuz Zoha etc. (2) AIR 1997 (SC) Jan Pg. 123. Bharmappa Nemanna Kawale & Another vs. Dhondi Bhima Patil & Ors. (3) 1994 (SCC)(2) Pg. 718. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) & Another. (4) AIR 1996 SCW Pg. 2727. Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar with Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Ms. Pravin Kumari. (5) AIR 1994 SCW Pg. 1947. Life Insourance Corporation of India vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar and Another. (6) AIR 1994 SCW Pg. 2305. Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others. (7) AIR 1994 SCW Pg. 2539. State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali.