1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by respondent No.1.
2. The facts of the present case in brief are that the father in law of the petitioner late Shri Abdul Shah Rajab Shah Fakir was working as Conductor with respondent corporation at Viramgam Depot and during his service, he expired on 02.08.2005. After his death, the husband of the petitioner Mayudin Shah Abdul Shah Fakir applied on 07.03.2006 for compassionate appointment for the post of Conductor as he was entitled for the said post as per rules. The respondent corporation had not given appointment to the petitioner husband. Thereafter, while the post of conductor was going to be filled in January 2011, the respondent authorities have issued an order to the husband of the petitioner for the post of conductor, but he expired prior to that on 24.10.2009.
3. The petitioner has, thereafter, applied for the compassionate appointment in lieu of her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the respondent corporation on 31.01.2011 to consider her case for compassionate appointment for the post of lady peon as she is 10th fail. The petitioner has issued a legal notice on 11.11.2011 to the respondents for the consideration of her case. The respondent No.1 by letter dated 29.11.2011 replied to the petitioner that when the recruitment process started in the respondent corporation, the respondent office vide letter dated 22.12.2010 informed petitioner's husband to approach personally to the respondent office for appointment for the post of conductor. But, prior to that on 24.10.2009 he was expired and therefore, job was not given to him and so far as petitioner's case is concerned, it is stated by the respondent corporation that there is no provisions for giving appointment to dependent of legal heir of the original employee. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
4. I have heard counsels for the parties. The husband of the petitioner has applied for the post of compassionate appointment after the death of his father and while the same application was pending, the husband of the petitioner has expired. According to the petitioner, if the respondent corporation has decided the application of the petitioner's husband in time, the husband of the petitioner would have got compassionate appointment after the death of the father-in-law of the petitioner and if the petitioner's husband was serving with the respondent corporation, the petitioner's husband would have been died while serving with the respondent corporation, the petitioner, being his would have got employment as compassionate appointment. In my view the basic concept of the petitioner is wrong. The daughter-in-law cannot get compassionate appointment on the ground that the son of the deceased would have got compassionate appointment qua the post of his deceased father, and after his death the petitioner would get the compassionate appointment on his husband's post. Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, in my view, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
[K S JHAVERI, J] Ankit* Top