1. This petition has been preferred against the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 21.09.2011 whereby, the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner died on 13.2.2001 while in service with the respondent No.2. At that time the petitioner was minor. After becoming major, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. However, the said application was rejected, vide order dated 01.04.2010 passed by Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred S.C.A. No.4834/2011 before this Court, which came to be disposed of by order dated 7.07.2011 by directing the respondents to re-examine and reconsider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, petitioner made a representation on 19.7.2011 before the respondents. The respondent-authority rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 21.09.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds under which the respondent-authority has rejected the application of the petitioner are baseless and flimsy. The reasons given by the authority are untenable.
4. On the other hand, learned AGP submitted that the family of the bereaved employee had received a substantial amount pursuant to the death of the employee and that they are getting monthly pension of Rs.1887/-. He further submitted that the dependent of the deceased employee i.e. wife did not apply for the compassionate appointment at the relevant time. As per the G.R. Dated 16.12.1991 issued by G.A.D., wherein it has been stated that the dependent of the deceased employee has to apply within a period of six months from the date of death of the employee. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said decision reproduced as under:-
"11.
It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible Dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate soccour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation cause to the dependants as a result of his death simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with case of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies, etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two to three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a rigid time-limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme.
13. In this case the respondent was only 11 years old at the time of the death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made on 2.7.1993, even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In, such a case, the appointment cannot be said to subserve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service. "
5. From that the record it is clear that the application seeking compassionate appointment was preferred by the petitioner after lapse of seven years and therefore the very object of providing employment on compassionate ground is frustrated. Apart from that the dependents have received a reasonable amount as per the prevailing Government policy. According to the prevailing policy, the claimant is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, his application was rejected. Even in view of the the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu(supra) the claimant is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the authority concerned was completely justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] pawan Top