Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.J.VAIDYA
CHANABHAI BABABHAI MARU - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDENT,secretary DHANDHUKA NAGAR PANCHAYAT - Respondent
S.C.A.7038 of 1992
Decided On : 08/18/1993
When it is not disputed before this Court that [i] the petitioner is not a dependent son of the deceased employee; [ii] the deceased employee was the sole bread-earner,[iii] on sudden death of the employee his family was in economic distress and need assistance; and [iv] the dependent is also not even otherwise incompetent to be appointed as sweeper on compassionate ground. When such appears to be no valid justification to refuse appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Rather when such is an uncontroversial situation, to refuse appointment to the petitioner is indeed too harsh and unjust, as the same is patently against the accepted policy of giving employment to the dependent of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds.
[Para 6]
Vade Vecume - Appointment on compassionate grounds - Mere issuance of ideal circulars in that regard not enough - Proper steps for deliverance of desired results - Steps indicated.
Mere issuance of the same is hardly enough. If we mean real business, then in that case, the authorities issuing such circulars should not stop at mere issuance of the same but should also take further care to see that the intention and spirit behind it is duly honoured and complied with, and whenever it is reported that such circulars are just ignored, then in that case to mean real business and enforce the underlying intention of the circular, the defaulting authorities are required to be duly censured or suitably dealt with ! It is only when in this particular manner the circulars are persued that it can deliver the desired result, otherwise, as its name suggests, it will circle round and round without any meaning.
[Para 6.1]
It appears to this Court that moment any employee serving either in the Government or its Statutory Corporation unfortunately dies in harness, would be highly in public interest, and therefore desirable, if the head of the concerned department taking notice of the same volunteers of his own to inquire, in the first instance whether the deceased employee was the sole bread earner and in his absence, his family was rendered destitute needing any economic assistance, and in the second instance, by taking follow-up action by giving suitable appointment; if indeed the case is made out. In the opinion of this Court, this anxiety on behalf of the head of department is necessary in the country of ours where the illiterate, ignorant masses unaware of such beneficial social policy may not miss the bus and ultimately replied that they have missed the same by not approaching in time. In such cases of giving appointment on compassionate grounds, the State Government and the Statutory Corporations are indeed supposed to be an ideal masters and the custodians of the interest of not only its employees but their family members too as this is the better recognition and homage to the services rendered to the department by the departed employee. It is only when this sort of positive attitude of the concerned head of department towards his employee is evinced, then and than only we can claim that our public services are duly public-oriented, with sense of duty and love for the fellow employee.
[Para 6.2]
( 1 ) WHETHER any dependent can be denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds under the pretext that his/her widow mother would be entitled to get Family Pension alongwith some Provident Fund Gratuity and other incidental service benefits and also that the dependent son or daughter was residing with her? This in short is the question of quite some importance that arises for consideration in the present petition in the background of following facts
( 2 ) BACKGROUND - Father of the petitioner Chanabhai namely Bababhai Karsanbhai Maru was appointed by Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat [respondent No. 1 herein] in the year 1957 as a Sweeper and thereafter was confirmed on the said post and continued to serve till the time he died on 15 rendering in all services for 30 long years. As the deceased Bababhai K. Maru was the only bread-winner in his family and the petitioner being his eldest son had applied to the respondent-Nagar Panchayat for appointment on compassionate grounds as a Sweeper. Both the petitioner and his mother approached the respondents several times requesting them orally to be kind enough to appoint him on compassionate grounds however since the same failed to bring about the desired result the mother of the petitioner was ultimately constrained to give reminder application dated 27-9-1991 [annexure A ] once again requesting the respondents to accommodate his son [petitioner herein] by giving him suitable employment on compassionate grounds. It is further the case of petitioner that when one Dharmsi Kana Maru who was also working as a Sweeper under the respondents expired while on duty on 10-9-1991 his daughter Mangubehn was given appointment on compassionate ground as a Sweeper within a period of fortnight. Now despite this glaring fact for the reasons best known to the respondents on the petitioner came to be discriminated in the matter of his employment on compassionate ground he has been constrained to move this Court inter alia praying for directing the respondent-Nagar Panchayat to give him employment as a Sweeper on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father Bababhai.
( 3 ) WHILE voicing the heart burnings and reflecting the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly praying for the urgent relief of immediately appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds Mr. Padiwal the learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that not only the respondents have failed to give appointment pursuant to application dated 27-9-1991 made by the mother of the petitioner but even the reply to the same by way of a basic courtesy was not given Mr. Padiwal further submitted that in an identical case where one Dharmsi Kana Maru who also worked under the respondents as a Sweeper when he expired on 10-9-1991 his daughter Mangubehn was immediately employed on compassionate grounds as a Sweeper within a period of fortnight therefore it is indeed too difficult to understand as to why discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioner who is similarly placed On the basis of these submissions Mr. Padiwal finally urged that the respondents be directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds without fail and any further delay.
( 4 ) NOW on perusal of the record it appears that when this matter came up for admission on 3 this Court [coram: C. K. Thakkar J. ] issued a notice making it returnable on 22 Thereafter this matter went on being adjourned twice. It also further appears that in the meantime in reply to the Notice issued by this Court one Mr. H. J. Sanghvi Secretary of Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the President of the Nagar Panchayat as well as his own behalf taking strong objection to the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner on the grounds as stated in detail in paras 4 5 and 6 of the said affidavit. According to the respondents the widow of the deceased Bababhai was entitled to get Family Pension at the
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
