IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13157 of 2021 ==========================================================

SHARMISHTHABEN WD/O PRAVINBHAI BAVARIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SUMAN J MOTLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 02/12/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction of quashing and setting aside the communication dated 12.04.2019 issued by the respondent authority, wherein and whereby the case of the petitioner for lump sum compensation has been rejected.

2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1983 as a Talati-cum-Mantri (i.e. Class III employee) at Taluka Gadhda and he passed away on 28.08.2008. Thereafter on 20.10.2008, the daughter of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. On 28.08.2009 the respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of economic status of the family. Once again, the daughter of the petitioner applied on 26.09.2011 reiterating her request for compassionate appointment. On 26.09.2011, the petitioner requested the respondent authority to pay lump sum compensation in view of the scheme introduced by the State Government vide Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

3. It appears that thereafter, the daughter of the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.18619 of 2011 seeking compassionate appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2012. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed another writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6733 of 2018, which was also disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2018 by directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2016. It appears that thereafter, vide communication dated 12.04.2019, a case of the petitioner for finacial assistance has been rejected.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Parekh, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the lump sum compensation in view of the Policy dated 05.07.2011, as her husband has completed more than 12 years of service. It is submitted that the respondent may accordingly be directed to grant the benefit of the lump sum compensation.

5. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Motla, has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to lump sum compensation since the case was already rejected for the compassionate appointment and a writ petition was also rejected. It is submitted that there is no provisions in the policy dated 05.07.2011, which enables the State to provide lump sum compensation after rejection of the case of compassionate appointment.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents.

7. The aforesaid facts, which are not in dispute are that the husband of the petitioner passed away in the year 2008, and immediately within a period of two months, his daughter i.e. daughter of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 28.08.2009. It appears that the daughter of the petitioner also filed Special Civil Application No.18619 of 2011 seeking for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the order dated 16.07.2012. The aforesaid order dated 16.07.2012 has become final and has not been challenged further by the daughter of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 26.09.2011 claiming lump sum compensation in view of new policy introduced by the State Government vide Resolution dated 05.07.2011. The earlier policy of offering compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee was rescinded.

8. Thus, once the reject