SCA/30187/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30187 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 ? ========================================= = IMRANKHAN ABBASKHAN PATHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ========================================= = Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner:1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent:1 None for Respondents:2-4 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/30187/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT RULE. Mr.Shivang Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of the application which he has preferred pursuant to death of his father on 21st May, 2004. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the application was moved by the applicant on 15th July, 2004 that is within the time limit as per rules and regulations for compassionate appointment. However, during pendency of the application of the applicant, new rules have come into force on 16th March, 2005 by which the requirement for compassionate appointment has gone high and the authorities grant the compassionate appointment to the person having passed SSC examination. The learned Advocate further submitted that on the ground of not being passed SSC examination, the authority i.e. respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the applicant and thereby has committed error not considering the aspect that rules which were in existence at the time of preferring application by the applicant can only be applicable to the application of the applicant. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 12 SCC 44 in the case of Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. and in the case of State Bank of India and Others v. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571. 4. I have gone through the averments of the application and submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. SCA/30187/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT In view of the decision of the Supreme Court as referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities should have applied rules and regulations prevailing at the time when the application was made by the applicant not the rules and regulations which have come thereafter. 5. In view of the above, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. 6. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Amit/-