The court affirmed that compassionate appointments should be timely and that significant delays undermine their purpose, especially when applicants secure employment.

ORDER :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta for the petitioner.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to grant the petitioner appointment on compassionate basis w.e.f. 18.10.2001 and in alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents may be directed to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of order dated 20.11.2006 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19324 of 2006.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mehta and having perused the documents on record, it would appear that late father of the petitioner Shri Anilbhai Tuljashankar Dave was working as a Principal in a school run by the respondent No.1. He had expired while on duty on 22.09.2001 and whereas an application had been made by the present petitioner within a period of one month i.e. on 18.10.2001 for being granted compassionate appointment. It would appear that since the application had not been considered for a reasonable period of time, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, on 27.01.2005 and whereas the same also not being decided by the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.19324 of 2006. It would appear that a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.11.2006, had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2005 in light of the Government policy dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 as adopted by the respondents within a period of two months from date of receipt of that order. It would appear that the petitioner had informed the respondents about the said order vide his communication dated 12.12.2006 and whereas the petitioner had been called for a personal hearing on 22.01.2007 before the respondent No.1 with regard to the the grievance ventilated by the petitioner. It would appear that ultimately vide communication dated 29.01.2007, the petitioner had been informed by the respondent No.1 that as and when the vacancy for compassionate appointment will be available with the respondent No.1, the petitioner would be appointed taking into consideration his high qualification. It would appear that from 2007, the petitioner does not appear to have been done anything and on the other hand, the respondent also had never informed the petitioner about the petitioner being entitled for appointment. It would appear that later on i.e. approximately after 15 years vide communication dated 04.10.2022, the petitioner had informed the respondent No.1 that one junior clerk named Shri Atul Trivedi had retired on 30.09.2022 and whereas the petitioner may be appointed on said post, more particularly having regard to the qualification held by the petitioner. The said representation having not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having made an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the stipulated time period, ought to have been granted appointment on compassionate basis and whereas while the respondents had informed the petitioner that as and when a vacancy would arise in their set up, they would inform the petitioner, more particularly looking to the qualification held by the petitioner, yet, for a long time the petitioner was never informed about any vacancy and therefore, upon learning of a vacancy in the respondents, the petitioner had himself approached the respondents yet, till date, the respondents have not deemed it appropriate to appoint the petitioner or give appointment on any