1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of suitable directions to the respondent to consider the case of petitioner's daughter for compassionate appointment on the line of other cases considered by the department.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while on duty on 07.03.1994, the petitioner suffered a non fatal accident wherein he sustained 90% disability. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had conveyed to the respondent authority that he is ready and willing to submit voluntary retirement in case his son is considered for appointment as per Rules. Accordingly, a representation was preferred for compassionate appointment which was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation for compassionate appointment of his daughter which was also rejected. Being aggrieved by the said action, the present petition is preferred.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the respondent in denying compassionate appointment is totally against the Rules and Regulations prevailing in the respondent department. He submitted that similarly situated cases have been considered by the respondent where appointment orders have been issued in respect of the sons/daughters of those employees who met with accident while on duty. In this context, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the Circular dated 04.06.2005 issued by the respondent department which is with regard to employment to the dependents of employees who have become incapable of discharging duties due to accident while on duty and are willing to resign. He has also drawn attention of this Court to Annexure 'R' to the petition wherein the information regarding compassionate appointment given to other similarly situated employees is given as per Right to Information Act.
5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent department supported the case of the department and submitted that there is a gross delay in preferring this petition and on that ground only the petition deserves to be dismissed. He submitted that the petitioner has been continued in service for all these period and he has been paid full regular salary as well as medical reimbursement.
5.1 Mr. Dave submitted that as per the policy of the Company compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only when family has no other source of income, such appointment would be considered. He submitted that the son of the petitioner is also having independent income.
6. It is borne out from the records that for the cause of action of the year 2000/1994, the petitioner has approached this Court after all these years i.e. after almost 12 to 18 years . It is a matter of record that on 21.03.2000 the then Gujarat Electricity Board had rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to his son. Thereafter, representations and correspondences would not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The delay of around 12 years is very gross and cannot be overlooked more particularly since now the petitioner is about to retire.
7. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner has been continued in service for all these years and he has been paid regular salary and medical reimbursement also. The petitioner is to retire on 30.06.2013 and therefore at the fag end of his service the petitioner wants appointment of his daughter in the establishment of respondent. The very object of the policy of the respondent is to meet with financial constraints at the time of accident. The petitioner had been enjoying the fruits of full salary and other incidental benefits all these years.
8. In the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//