1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article-226 of Constitution of India, has approached this Court with following prayers.
(A) Quashing and setting aside the letter dated 8/8/2012 and directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to a suitable post.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent no.1 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.
(C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.
The brief facts leading to filing of this petition as could be culled-out from the memo of the petition, deserves to be set-out as under in order to appreciate the challenge and grievances admitted to be raised on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 29/09/2002, at that time the petitioner was minor and his sister was also minor. Therefore, the petitioner s uncle sent an intimation to the State that as and when the petitioner will attain adulthood, he would apply for compassionate appointment. The petitioner s date of birth is 06/01/1991 and as per the say of his counsel, he attained adulthood on 06/01/2009 or thereabout. The petitioner, therefore, approached the authority by his application dated 07/05/2010, which was rejected vide order dated 06/08/2010. The said order of rejection contain the reasons, which were not in consonance with law for rejecting such application and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application no.3815 of 2011, wherein this Court on 29/03/2011 passed an order permitting the petitioner to make representation to respondent no.1 within the period of 15 days from the date of the order and respondent no.1 was directed to consider and decide the same in light of the judgment dated 14/12/2010 passed in S.C.A. No.15955 of 2010, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. The said decision of the Learned Single Judge carried out into appeal being L.P.A. No.271 of 2012 with Civil Application No.2149 of 2012, which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 23rd February, 2012 wherein the Division Bench while disposing the appeal made following observations.
2. Learned AGP Ms. Chandarana for the appellant submitted that the said judgment passed in Special Civil Application No.15955 of 2010 will not be applicable in case of present respondent, in light of subsequent judicial pronouncements and circulars or resolutions of the Government.
3. We do not entertain this appeal, for the reasons that it would be open for the appellant to take decision on the representation that has been made by the respondent as per direction of the learned Single Judge. It does not preclude the appellant from relying on other judicial pronouncement, if it takes a different view in the matter. It would also be open for the appellant to refer and rely on Circulars and/or Government Resolutions, if any, if they are applicable to the facts of the case. In the sense that this Government Resolution or Circular must be operative on the relevant date. The appeal stands dismissed with the above observations.
4. In view of the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
5. The representation was not decided in time and hence, the contempt petition was preferred being Misc. Civil Application No.1430/2012 in S.C.A. No.3815 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by the Court on 09/08/2012. Ultimately, that decision was rendered on 08/08/2012, which is said to be the order impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
6. The petitioner s advocate has contended that the present decision dated 08/08/2012 containing the grounds, which were not originally forming part of the order and therefore, it amounts to adding of grounds for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner could not indicate as and in what manner the order impugned could be illegally assailed.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the petition is required to be dismissed for following reasons.
The impugned order contains of specific reference to the General Administrative Department Resolution dated 10/03/2000 and item no.8
(b) thereof as well as, other provisions for rejecting the representation and it is not disputed by the petitioner in any manner that after the demise of his father, there was a possibility of his sister being a beneficiary of the compassionate policy as she was admittedly elder to the petitioner and as such she could have availed opportunity of seeking compassionate appointment. In the instant case, it seems that the sister, who was elder to the petitioner did not availed that opportunity and as if the petitioner was having wasted right to seek appointment and he therefore, approached the authority after attaining the adulthood. The policy, which is pressed into service for compassionate appointment, indicate clearly that in the first instance the kith and kin of the deceased employee dying in harness will have to avail an opportunity of compassionate appointment. In case, if the widow of the deceased employee is capable and eligible to obtain even an employment in Class-IV, then also the right to seek compassionate appointment, which is available to the family members, is treated to have been availed if the widow is not come forward for availing the said right.
8. In light of the above discussion, the petition is bereft of merits, deserves rejection. The impugned order is not illegal in any manner. Hence, the petition is rejected. The Court, however, imposes no costs whatsoever.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod...
Page 4 of 4