SCA/27800/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27800 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== RASHMINBHAI HASMUKHBHAI RAVAL Versus MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & another ====================================== Appearance : MR MURALI N DEVNANI for Petitioner, MR MD PANDYA for Respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 24/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/27800/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT 1 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief in paragraph 15. “[B] allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the wife of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Alternatively Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for re-appointment. [C] Be pleased to hold the action of the respondent authorities of not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.” 2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with the respondents as Telephone Attendant from 1988 to 2.2.2002. He submitted his resignation on 12.11.2001 on the ground that he was suffering from mental illness and was also undergoing treatment for that. He requested the respondents to consider the case of his wife for compassionate appointment. The above resignation of the petitioner came to be accepted by the respondents and the petitioner was relieved from duty. Later on, various representations were made from 2002 onwards with regard to compassionate appointment for the wife of the petitioner or, in the alternative, to reemploy the petitioner in service. 3 Shri Murali N. Devnani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from acute financial hardship. He further submits that, in the case of similarly situated persons, the respondents considered their cases for reemployment and, therefore, suitable directions may be given to the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the wife of the petitioner or to reemploy the petitioner in service. SCA/27800/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT 4 Shri M.D. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the request of the petitioner about compassionate appointment for the wife of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-Board as early as on 11.1.2002. Not only that, by order dated 2.2.2002, the resignation of the petitioner came to be accepted waiving the notice period and the petitioner accepted all terminal benefits. According to Shri Pandya, there are no rules or resolutions to the effect that an employee, once tendered resignation and accepted by the Board, can be reemployed or the kith or kin of such resigned employee can be considered for compassionate appointment. Shri Pandya relies on the resolution of the Board dated 15.3.1986 and submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered by the respondent-Board. 4 Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and in absence of any specific policy with regard to compassionate appointment to the kin and kith of resigned employee, no direction can be given to the respondent to appoint the wife of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Even the petitioner cannot be reemployed once his resignation was accepted and the terminal benefits were already granted to him. 5. In the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)