SCA/1298520/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12985 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PARESHKUMAR NARMADASHANKAR UPADHYAY - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JV JAPEE for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS KRINA CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, MR MANISH J PATEL for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by respondent no.1 herein refusing to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. SCA/1298520/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The father of the petitioner was serving as a Deputy Teacher in a Primary School and died in harness on 18.12.1983. On 28.12.1998, the petitioner made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the same was rejected by the respondent – authority way of passing the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent – authority has erroneously rejected the representation of the petitioner in spite of the fact that the father of the petitioner had died in harness. He has submitted that considering the facts of the case, the delay caused in applying for compassionate appointment should have been condoned. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died on 18.12.1983 and that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 28.12.1998. Therefore, admittedly, there is a long delay in applying for appointment under the scheme. 5. Considering the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision in the case of State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 wherein, it has been held that when there is a long delay in applying for appointment under the scheme, such request cannot be accepted. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the SCA/1298520/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above principle is also laid down in the case of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468. In the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, it has been held that there cannot be any reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years unless there are some specific provisions. 6. In the present case, the petitioner is not able to point out any provision in the scheme which enables the petitioner to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds after a long delay. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authority has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground of long delay. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*