SCA/10280/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10280 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== DEEPAKKUMAR JAYESHBHAI CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR KETAN A DAVE for the Petitioner Mr Hemant Makwana, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 17/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT What is admitted is that the death of the father of the petitioner took place on 10.12.2000. On that day, he had not attained the age of SCA/10280/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT 18 years. He was short of 18 years by six months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authority should not have insisted upon the age of 18 years being completed on 10.12.2000. The authorities in a way considered the age within six months for being 18 years. They should have considered it after one year, according to the learned counsel for the petition and by that time the petitioner would have completed 18 years of age. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195. To decide the controversy, the Court has to first go to a State Government resolution promulgated on 10th March 2000, which, in relevant Clause 8(B) states as under:- “8(B) Since the basic objective of this scheme is to provide immediate assistance to give relief in economic hardship and to bring the dependent family out of the unexpected critical situation, in no case the compassionate appointment will be given in any circumstances after waiting till any member of the dependent family who was minor at the time of the death of the employee, becomes major. Therefore, the widow or widower or any eligible major member of the dependent family shall make application within time limit, for compassionate appointment on the lowest category of Class-III or Class-IV post in accordance with his educational qualification at the time of the death of the employee and shall have to accept the appointment admissible as per educational qualification. The eligibility of securing compassionate appointment by widow, widower or any member of the dependent family shall be considered suo motu cancelled, who fails to make application in prescribed SCA/10280/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT time limit or who rejects the appointment given to him/her according to his/her educational qualification at the relevant time and no claim can be made regarding that subsequently.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the State Government resolution, any appointment in the nature of compassionate nature is debarred from being given after waiting till any member of the dependent family member attains majority. When there is a negative covenant in the Resolution itself, the case relied upon by the learned counsel is in the background where no such stipulation was there in any of the Government Resolutions and the Honourable Court in paragraph 5 has taken note of the same. Thus, the Supreme Court decision would not cover the facts of this case and in this case the plain and simple reading of Clause 8(B), which puts embargo on the appointments in the nature of compassionate appointments cannot be offered to the persons who attained the majority not on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner but subsequently. That being the position, no relief is likely to be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petition has no force. Hence, it is dismissed. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) *mohd