1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.3.2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground has been rejected.
2. Heard Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. The facts which can be carved out from the record of the petition is that the father of the petitioner was working as Kotval with respondent No.4 i.e. Taluka Development Officer of Village Morva, District Panchmahal. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was working as Kotval for 24 years and had blotless career.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that while in service, the father of the petitioner passed away on 2.6.2003. It further transpires from the record that the date on which the petitioner's father expired, the petitioner was minor and still however, the petitioner made an application on 11.5.2005 for being appointed on compassionate basis as per the policy of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the said application was examined and vide letter dated 17.12.2005, the petitioner was informed that as the said application was filed beyond the time of after more than six months, the same cannot be accepted and it came to be rejected.
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner attained majority in the year 2006, as his birth date is 2.2.1988. As per the Government Resolution, a person can apply for compassionate appointment within two years from the date of attaining the age of majority and accordingly, the petitioner again applied for being appointed on compassionate basis vide application dated 21.6.2006. However, the said application after scrutiny came to be rejected vide order dated 26.3.2007.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that even after rejection of the application vide order dated 26.3.2007, the petitioner made further representations on 8.8.2007, 14.2.2008, 8.4.2008 and lastly on 29.4.2008.
7. As nothing happened and no orders were passed on such representations having been made, the present petition is filed.
8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
9. Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of more than three years in challenging the order of rejection dated 26.3.2007. However, now the State Government has come out with a fresh policy under Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, which interalia provides for monetary compensation to the family of the deceased and therefore, submitted that at least the case of the petitioner should be considered in light of the new Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011.
10. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned AGP submitted that the order impugned in the present petition is dated 26.3.2007, whereas the present petition is filed on 17.9.2011 i.e. almost after a lapse of four years and therefore, only on the ground of delay, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned AGP further submitted that the petitioner has not made any application for the benefit of the new policy declared by way of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and therefore, even prayer (D) cannot be granted.
11. Considering the rival submissions, it is an admitted position that what is challenged in this petition is the order of rejection dated 26.3.2007 and admittedly, the petition is filed after almost a period of four years and therefore, on the ground of delay, the petition does not deserve any consideration.
12. However, the Government has come out with the new policy by way of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011, wherein it is interalia provided that instead of giving compassionate appointment, lumpsum compensation is to be granted to the heirs of the employees of ClassIII and IV who have expired while in service. Considering the said Government Resolution which is placed on record by the petitioner, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to file appropriate application for being considered for the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 and further directing the respondents to consider the same in light of the said Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 within some time frame.
[A] It would be open for the petitioner to apply to the concerned authority of the State Government as well as the respondent Panchayat for the benefit of the resolution dated 5.7.2011 within a period of 15 days from today.
[B] If any such application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be scrutinized and examined within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such an application.
[C] After the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order without being influenced by the fact that the earlier applications for compassionate appointment were rejected, in accordance with law considering the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2011 within a period of one month thereafter.
14. With these observations, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya