Gujarat High Court
Nisar Ahmad Abdulmiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 31 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)2GLR453
JUDGMENT
1. Rule, Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned AGP appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents.
2. The facts of present petition, in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was serving as a Primary Teacher in District Panchayat, Kheda, while in service, died on December 28, 1985. The petitioner as dependent, claimed appointment on compassionate ground under the rules of Government claiming himself to be eligible for the same. State Government, by memorandum dated September 13, 1991 at Annex. A, accorded its approval of appointment of the petitioner as Jr. Clerk. However, after almost 10 years of the death of employee and even after 3 1/2 years of sanction by government, the petitioner has not been offered appointment. Finally, the petitioner has been told by the respondents vide letter dated February 19, 1994 that as the authority to appoint is given to the Development Commissioner, respondents cannot do anything in the matter and advised the petitioner to approach Development Commissioner.
3. I have no hesitation to state here that the respondents have in the present case, clearly acted in derogation of and to defeat clearly the objectives for attainment of which policy of appointing dependents of government employees who died while in service on compassionate grounds dehors rules of regular selection. The clear objective for granting such reliefs is to mitigate immediate hardships caused to the griefed family on account of death of bread-earner. If such appointments are delayed for indefinite period on the specious ground of administrative exigencies, the very purpose of such policy will fail. It is a case in which State Government has first taken 6 years time to come to a decision whether the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be offered job under rules governing such cases and even after finding his case governed by that, the petitioner is yet asked to run from pillar to post for getting appointment order. In this connection, it will be relevant to recall the observations made by Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1990-I-LLJ-169) as under :
"We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointments on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."
4. In the result, this petition is allowed and respondents or their delegate in that regard are directed to appoint the petitioner Nisar Ahmed Abdul Miya on the post to which he has been found eligible to appointment vide Annex. A within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
5. Rule is made absolute. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which is quantified at Rs. 2000/- and which amount shall be paid along with appointment order.
6. Direct Service Permitted