By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (A) Your Lordship may be pleased to Admit and Allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent no.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and fairness of things.
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure-A)passed by the respondent no.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give leave encashment amount of deceased Prakash Dharker forthwith in the interest of justice and fairness of things.
(2) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as under in para 7 and 8 of the affidavit in reply:-
“7. Petitioner's father expired on 03.12.2003 during the tenure of employment. Petitioner's filed application for compassionate appointment on 03.03.2004. The application of the petitioner was rejected by letter dated 28.03.2011.
8. Petitioner has also made an application for leave encashment and which was rejected. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of circular dated 14.02.1994 of R & B Department. On 28.09.1997 R & B Department has instructed all the department that as per the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 11723 of 1994 dated 22.11.1995 stating that if there is no roots regarding the compassionate appointment in the department, then the dependents have no right to claim for compassionate appointment. The circular of R & B Department dated 02.12.2005 has specifically stated that the daily wager are not entitled for compassionate appointment and leave encashment as they are not permanent employee of the department.”
3. The father of the petitioner was working as a daily wager and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment and also to claim leave encashment.
4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the respondents is not just and proper. The present petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) sid/