PRADYUMANSINH NARVIRSINH SARVAIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under v 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is belonging to lower strata of society and has no other means, after the demise of his father, who was serving as a Work Assistant, Class-III, in Sub Division of Irrigation Department at Mahuva, who died during the service tenure on 24.5.2004. As the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, mother of the petitioner, Mrs.Varshaba Narvirsinh Sarvaiya, had applied with requisite documents for seeking compassionate employment on 16.6.2004 in view of Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000 in the prescribed format. The authority on 14.8.2006 rejected the mother's application for seeking compassionate employment on the ground that she was not holding adequate qualification. As a result of this, the present petitioner on attaining the age of majority had applied for compassionate employment. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was one year short to attain the age of majority and this fact was well within the knowledge of the authority but the request has not been considered. On completion of 18 years, an application was submitted on 19.3.2008 to consider the case of the petitioner, but the same was rejected vide order dated 12.8.2008 and since then, the request is being made on repetitive basis and lastly, the complaint was also lodged in Chief Minister Dispute Redressal Programme in February, 2010. The last rejection took place is on 15.1.2011 which has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.R.Mishra has submitted that pursuant to Government Resolution dated 10.3.2000, the case was required to be considered for seeking compassionate employment since father of the petitioner died during the course of services on 24.5.2004 and at the relevant point of time, the mother immediately had applied within the prescribed time for seeking compassionate employment but on account of erroneous reason, the mother's case has not been considered, resultantly, the petitioner has to apply for seeking compassionate employment. Mr. Mishra has candidly submitted that rejection of request of mother has not been assailed by way of filing any proceedings and on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner had immediately applied for the same. Learned advocate, Mr.Mishra has submitted that compassionate employment is not a bounty but is a legitimate right of the petitioner seeking such employment in view of the consistent policy and, therefore, the decision which has been taken is not in consonance with the object of the policy, resultantly, has requested to grant the relief as prayed for.