Acceptance of monetary compensation under a compassionate appointment scheme precludes further claims for such appointment, as per the applicant's undertaking.

JUDGMENT :

VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dhruv Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. Suman Motla, learned A.G.P. for the respondent no. 2.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application.

(B) A writ of mandamus & or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus & or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on appropriate post permanently till he attains age of superannuation on the ground of compassionate appointment with respondent authority as early as possible with utmost priority in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, an interim protection may kindly be granted by directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on adhoc basis as per G.R. dated 15.6.2004 in the interest of justice.

(D) Be pleased to expedite the final hearing of this petition.

(E) Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Briefly stated, the father of the petitioner was working with the respondent-GIDC on the post of peon, having joined the services with the respondent no. 1 on 24.09.1985 and has expired on duty due to cardiac arrest on 13.09.2005. The death certificate of the petitioner’s father-Kanubhai is duly produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner herein applied for compassionate appointment with the respondent-authority by filing an application dated 20.10.2005, which is duly produced at Annexure-D. In absence of any reply from the respondent-authority nor any order of appointment, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Mr. Dhruv Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted appointment on compassionate ground upon the application filed by the petitioner dated 20.10.2005. It is submitted that the petitioner is governed by the government resolution dated 10.03.2000 wherein, the income criteria, which was prevailing at the relevant point of time came to be cancelled and the respondent-State was pleased to resolve that in future, there would not be any income criteria for the appointment on compassionate ground. Reliance is placed on item 5, clause-C, sub-clause (1) and (2) which denotes for educational qualification for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts. It is submitted that the said application was not answered nor considered by the respondent-authority and in view thereof, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court.

4.1. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has filed affidavit, which is duly produced at page 76 wherein, it is stated that the respondent no. 1 being part of the State, is bound by the scheme of compassionate appointment floated by the State Government. It is submitted that as per the norms of the respondent-Corporation, the Corporation submitted the proposals for approval to the State Government for giving compassionate employment to the eligible applicants and that the decision was awaited and as soon as the decision of the respondent-State for filling up the vacant posts is received, necessary action for appointment on compassionate ground would be taken by the respondent-Corporation.

4.2. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 02.02.2007, which is sent to the respondent no. 2, duly produced at Annexure-R1. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has also filed affidavit, which is duly produced at page 114. The said affidavit states that by order dated 27.08.2013, communicated to the respondent no. 1 that as per the notification no. RHM/102009/1651/A dated 05.07.2011, employees of Class-III and IV of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation i.e. the respondent no. 1 herein, who expired while servi