Gujarat High Court
Shaikh Asif Iqbal Bavamiya vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 2 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)2GLR106
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has approached this Court as his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-Corporation. As averred by th petitioner, his father, after his retirement as a police personnel, was serving at Mangrol S.T. Depot as a reliever watchman. Reading Annexure 'A', it becomes clear that since 1988, his father is relieved from the job due to old age. In 1988, the petitioner made an application to the respondent that considering the case set out in his application, he should be given appointment. It appears that in 1989, the petitioner got a job in the respondent-Corporation for a temporary period. On June 6, 1990, father of the petitioner died and thereafter, for the first time, on November 5, 1994, petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, he has made representations but ultimately his application appears to have been turned down. Hence this petition.
2. There is nothing in the record to show that the father of the petitioner was in regular employment with the respondent-Corporation at any point of time, much less at the time of his death. On the contrary, from Annexure 'A', which is a copy of an application dated April 11, 1988 given by the petitioner himself, it is quite clear the father of the petitioner was a retired police personnel, he was working as an off day reliever watchman. It further appears from the records that he was not working even as an off day reliever watchman with the Corporation on the date of his death because on account of old age and ill health, he was relieved much earlier. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, right in its contention in the affidavit-in-reply that in view of the guidelines prescribed by the Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Benefit of compassionate appointment would emanate only from a regular appointment to the heirs of regular employees of the Corporation. Hence, father of the petitioner being not in regular employment with the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has no right for compassionate employment with the respondent-Corporation.
3. In their affidavit-in-reply, respondent-Corporation has relied on condition No. 30 of the Labour Settlement in Resolution No. 1281 according to which a dependent of a deceased employee of the Corporation has to make an application for compassionate appointment within a period of one year. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has made the application after a lapse of four years and hence his application has been rightly turned down by the respondents.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mala Singh v. Financial Commissioner, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 192, has held as under in paragraph 5 of the judgment :
".................... A person who dies in harness and whose members of the family need immediate relief of providing appointment to relieve economic distress from the loss of the bread-winner of the family need compassionate treatment ..... ....... But, however, it is made clear that if the appointments are confined to the son/daughter or widow of the deceased Government employee who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread-winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable."
In the case of Umeshkumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995-I-LLJ-
798), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 6 of the judgment as under :
"For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
5. This petition is required to be rejected on these grounds without entering into any other aspects, and is hereby rejected. Notice discharged with no order as to costs.