Compassionate appointment requests must be put forth and the benefit conferred within a reasonable time, and the compassionate element stands extinguished after a long time.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and the order/communication dated 08.01.2004 be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Vidita Jayswal for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner viz. Kababhai Kukabhai Baladhiya was working as work-charge labour with the respondent department. The father of the petitioner died on 21.05.1997 while in service. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent authority with a request that he may be appointed on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the said application was forwarded to the concerned competent authority. The petitioner supplied necessary details to the respondents. However, vide impugned communication dated 08.01.2004, the respondent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner mainly on the ground that mother of the petitioner is working as work-charge employee with the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Mahuva. Petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition challenging the said communication.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that though the petitioner was eligible for grant of compassionate appointment as per the relevant policy framed by the State Government, the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father. Learned advocate has referred the relevant documents which are placed on record. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that impugned communication be quashed and set aside and thereby appropriate direction be issued to the respondents.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta has referred the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned AGP submitted that the father of the petitioner was appointed on work-charge establishment and there is no policy to grant appointment on compassionate ground to the legal heirs of the deceased employee/work-charge labourer. It is further submitted that widow of the deceased Kababhai Kukabhai Baladhiya was working as work-charge labourer with the concerned Department at Mahuva and therefore when one of the family members of the deceased work-charge employee was working, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father. Therefore, the petitioner was informed about the same by way of impugned communication. Hence, the respondent has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2004. It is also submitted by learned AGP that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2004 by filing present petition after a period of 14 years and therefore only on the ground of delay in filing present petition, this petition may not be entertained.

6. Learned AGP thereafter contended that now the State Government has taken a policy decision dated 05.07.2011 and thereby new policy is framed. Now there is no policy to grant appointment on compassionate ground. Learned AGP, at this stage, has placed reliance upon the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2227 of 2019. Copy of the said order is placed on record at page 23. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that present petition may not be entertained.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the father of the petitioner was working as work-charge labourer with the respondent department. He died no 21.05.1997 while in service. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the said application is rejected vide order/communication dated 08.01.2004. If the impugned orde