MUKESHKUMAR RATILAL NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and/or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31. 12. 2008 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father who was serving as Peon with Minor Irrigation Department, Gandhinagar. It the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's father who was working as Peon in the Minor Irrigation Department, Gandhinagar since 1993 died while in service on 18. 08. 2004 and therefore, as per the policy prevailing at the relevant time and as the petitioner was eligible for appointment as Peon / Class- IV employee, the petitioner submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground on 14. 09. 2004 within stipulated time. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner thereafter vide communication dated 02. 08. 2005 respondents declined to grant appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification in view of Notification dated 16. 03. 2005. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 17211 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the said Special Civil Application directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into consideration the Notification dated 16. 03. 2005. That again vide communication dated 16. 10. 2007 the respondent No. 2 denied the compassionate appointment. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner received communication from respondent No. 2 to to the effect that order dated 06. 10. 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 has been withdrawn and thereafter vide letter dated 20. 10. 2008 bearing No. 1589 of 2008 respondent No. 3 has sent recommendation for compassionate appointment to respondent No. 1 along with all documents. That thereafter, vide impugned order dated 31. 12. 2008 the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on the ground that looking to retiral benefits received by the petitioner on the death of his father and family pension, it cannot be said that financial condition of the family of the petitioner is pitiable so as to warrant appointment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. R. J. GOSWAMI, learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that impugned decision is absolutely illegal and most arbitrary and contrary to the policy of the State Government prevailing at the relevant time when the petitioner submitted application. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the petitioner submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground there was no income limit prescribed and there was no provision of income criteria. Therefore, it is submitted that action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground relying upon subsequent policy of the State Government deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 and decision dated 09. 03. 2009 of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 701 of 2009. Making above submissions and relying upon aforesaid decisions, it is requested to allow present Special Civil Application.