1. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner and to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground as per clause 8(B) of the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000.
2. The father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent, died in harness and therefore the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. After various correspondences, ultimately the request of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent no.3 on the basis of Government G.R. dated 10.03.2000. Therefore the present petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The contention raised in this petition by learned advocate for the petitioner is that the action of the respondent authority is totally with non-application of mind because the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 has been taken as a basis to reject the application of the petitioner but the interpretation which is based thereupon is totally wrong. He has submitted that the father of the petitioner expired on 19.12.2009, when the petitioner was a minor. He submitted that the minor preferred an application on 31.03.2010 for considering him to be appointed in future as and when he attained the age of major which came to be rejected.
4. This Court has gone through the materials placed on record including the various communications between the parties. It is a settled law that the respondent is required to consider the application for compassionate appointment on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing at the time of application. This principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SBI vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in 2007(9) SCC 571 wherein it is held that the matter should be decided within the parameters of the scheme prevailing when the application for compassionate appointment was made. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the son of the deceased employee is a minor, he cannot be eligible for the appointment at present, more particularly, in view of clause 8(B) of the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000. Even as per the provisions of the scheme dated 05.07.2011 the department is not required to review the case wherein the decision has already been taken and communicated. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondent authority is just and proper and does not require any interference. The petition is devoid of any merits and therefore requires to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top