Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Anil Manojbhai Solanki - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9746 of 2017
Decided On : 30-03-2021z
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Maulik Soni For Mr Nk Majmudar(430)
For the Respondent: Mr CJ Vin(978)
Point of Law: Municipal Corporation – Grant of Compassionate appointment - It is well settled that application for compassionate appointment is to be considered on basis of prevailing norms.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Resolution - Eligibility – Compassionate Appointment - Prayed for direction to the respondent Surat Municipal Corporation to grant compassionate appointment in accordance with resolution - Compassionate appointment to a minor can be considered only if wife of deceased and mother of petitioner was illiterate - Petitioner preferred an application informing that as she is 47 years of age and would not be eligible for compassionate appointment, therefore her son, who is dependent and a minor, may be offered appointment upon him attaining age of majority.
Finding of the court: The norms, prevailing on date of consideration of application, should be basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in absence of any vested right accruing on death of government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on day of death of government employee - Respondent Corporation has issued the communication in a slip shod manner. Therefore, action of respondent Corporation was not in right earnest and against the spirit of policy framed for purpose of compassionate appointment to dependents of employee who have died in harness.
Result: Petition is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. Issue Rule. Mr. C.J. Vin, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent Surat Municipal Corporation to grant compassionate appointment in accordance with the resolution dated 26.4.2006 and 8.9.2015.
4. Tersely stated are the facts:
4.1 The father of the petitioner was serving as Beldar in Central Zone, Surat Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent Corporation”) and while serving, he passed away on 15.3.2012. Immediately thereafter, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application dated 20.6.2012 to the Executive Engineer, Central Zone, Surat Municipal Corporation, inter alia, requesting for compassionate appointment. Along with the application, necessary documents were also annexed in support of her eligibility for getting such appointment.
4.2 According to the petitioner, as the application dated 20.6.2012 was not considered by the respondent Corporation, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application dated 19.3.2013 informing that as she is 47 years of age and would not be eligible for the compassionate appointment, therefore her son, who is dependent and a minor, may be offered appointment upon him attaining the age of majority. The mother of the petitioner shunted from pillar to post however, of no avail and almost after two years, the respondent Corporation had passed the order dated 16.3.2015, rejecting the application of the mother of the petitioner.
4.3 The respondent Corporation rejected the application dated 19.3.2013 of the mother of the petitioner relying upon condition No.6 of the resolution no.195/2006 dated 26.4.2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Resolution”) and on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was 7th standard pass and not illiterate. The respondent Corporation also pointed out that condition No.6 of the Resolution contemplates that in case the wife is illiterate, the son, who is minor, will be getting appointment upon his attaining the majority and the mother being literate, the dependent son was not eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground. The mother of the petitioner, being aggrieved, submitted a representation dated 6.10.2016, inter alia, narrating the fact that she was orally informed that as she has attained the age of 46 years, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment.
4.4 The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.
5. The respondent Corporation has filed its reply mainly contending that according to condition No.6 of the Resolution, the case of the petitioner, for compassionate appointment to a minor can be considered only if the wife of the deceased and mother of the petitioner was illiterate. In the present case, the documents reveal that the mother of the petitioner has studied till standard 7th and therefore, she would not be covered by condition No.6 of the Resolution. It is stated that since the case of the petitioner did not fall within the condition No.6 of the Resolution, there arises no question of considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, being a minor at the time of the death of the employee. It is further stated that reliance placed by the petitioner on the amended condition of the Resolution no.195/2006 dated 26.4.2006 is misplaced because, the amendment has been brought into effect on 8.9.2015, that is, much after the death of the father of the petitioner and filing of the application. It is therefore, urged that the petitioner is not competent or eligible or qualified to get appointed on compassionate ground after the demise of his father and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Mr. Maulik Soni, learned advocate appearing fo
