1. This petition has been preferred seeking the relief of issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
2. The father of the petitioner was serving on a Class-III post at Primary Health Centre, Amreli. He passed away on 14.10.2010 during the course of employment. The petitioner, therefore, made an application to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the same was not considered by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the above action, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the respondent-authority rejected the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the family of deceased, at the most, are entitled for lump-sum compensation and not appointment on compassionate grounds. In my opinion, the decision taken by the authority is in consonance with the prevailing policy of the State Government and hence, I find no reasons to disturb the same.
4. Here, it would be pertinent to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42 wherein, it has been held that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to family, which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of death of breadwinner and that an appointment made many years after death of employee or without due consideration of financial resources available to his/her dependents and financial deprivation caused to dependents as a result of his death, simply because claimant happened to be one of the dependents of deceased employee, would be directly in conflict with Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
5. Considering the facts of the case and the decision of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top