Solanki Lalitkumar Punjabhai vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Solanki Lalitkumar Punjabhai – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 18653 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N.V. Gandhi.
For the Respondent: Meet Thakkar.

Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Application - 10.03.2000, 16.03.2005 - The court discussed the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in light of the resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 16.03.2005. The court highlighted the legal principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are not a vested right and are relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee. The court also emphasized the importance of immediacy in considering applications for compassionate appointment and the need to evaluate the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. The court cited various legal provisions and judgments to support its decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the demise of his father, who was employed in the Idar Police Station. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of minimum educational qualification and delay in approaching the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was in line with the resolutions dated 10.03.2000 and 16.03.2005. The court emphasized the importance of immediacy in considering applications for compassionate appointment and the need to evaluate the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. The court also highlighted the legal principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing that such appointments are not a vested right and are relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, based on the lack of minimum educational qualification and delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles governing compassionate appointments, emphasizing the importance of immediacy in considering applications for compassionate appointment and the need to evaluate the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. The court also highlighted that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and are relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was in line with the legal principles governing compassionate appointments.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent no. 2 communicated vide letter dated 18.11.2008 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compensate ground.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider their decision, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-C above.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the father of the petitioner Shri Punjabhai Nathubhai Solanki expired on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner had given an application dated 30.04.2004 for appointment on compensate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that he had written a letter to the Police Officer, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar on 24.10.2007 by annexing his SSC certificate. That on 18.11.2008, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification of SCC and, therefore, the petitioner had made several oral representations to the concerned authorities to reconsider the impugned decision, but the same has not been considered. Hence, the said impugned decision is under challenged in this petition.

3. Heard Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Authorities.

4. Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. He has submitted that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on 30.04.2004 which was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification of SSC. He has submitted that the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 is without application of mind and without going through the contents of the application of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the respondent authorities are trying to deprive the petitioner of the legal and legitimate right and therefore, he has urged that the present petition be allowed and the order/s passed by the respondent authorities be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Authorities, has vehemently opposed the present petition and has submitted that the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment after demise of his father who was employed in the Idar Police Station. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification and, therefore, he made an application in the year 2007 which was rejected and on the ground of delay and latches, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4, more particularly paragraphs 6 and 10, which reads as under:

“6. It is respectfully submitted that the father of the petitioner Shri Punjabhai Nathabhai was expired on 12.03.2004. He was serving as armed police constable in the Idar Police Station. After the death of his father, the present petitioner has given an application to the Learned Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha dated 30.04.2004 for appointing him on the class-4 post as a peon on compassionate ground.

7. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent No. 4 has written vi