STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DIPAK KUMAR MOHANBHAI JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-State is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10587 of 2002 on 22nd January, 2003. The said petition was preferred by the respondent No. 1 aggrieved by the action on the part of the appellant of not granting compassionate appointment to him.

(2.) THE facts of the case can be stated thus: the father of respondent No. 1 was serving as a Driver with Taluka Development Officer at Rajkot. He expired on September 20, 1995, while in harness. The respondent No. 1 therefore applied for grant of an appointment on compassionate ground by application dated 6th January, 1999, which was rejected by the appellant-authority considering the relevant Circulars/ Resolutions of the Government. He again applied for the post on 8th January, 2001. Since there was no reply, he preferred Special Civil Application No. 10587 of 2002 which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 22nd January, 2003. This order has aggrieved the appellant-authority and hence this Appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sangeeta Vishen submitted that the case of respondent No. 1 could not be favourably considered by the appellant because his case did not fall within the income criteria fixed by the Government by various Resolutions and Circulars. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that while considering income criteria, income received by way of family pension is required to be excluded from the income of the family and if that was done, the family income of the respondent No. 1 would be below the criteria fixed, making the case of respondent No. 1 fall within the parameters for consideration for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. However, Ms. Vishen submitted that this aspect has been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J. N. Bhatt and Kundan Singh, JJ.) while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal No. 97 of 2002 with allied matters, by judgment dated 31st March, 2003. Ms. Vishen submitted that it is clearly observed in the said decision that it is for the Government to fix the parameters for considering the cases for compassionate appointment and the Court may not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a situation. She submitted further that the cut-off date fixed by the Government has also been upheld by the Division Bench by the said judgment. It is, therefore, submitted that the Appeal may be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge may be set aside.