SCA/8812/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8812 of 2008 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 ? ========================================= = BHAVIN RAMANBHAI GAMIT Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS ========================================= = Appearance : MS SONAL R SHAH for Petitioner:1 MS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondents:1-4 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/communication dated 15.1.2005 passed SCA/8812/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT by the respondent No.3,- Additional Police Commissioner (Admn.) Surat City, whereby the respondent No.3 rejected the application of the petitioner made for compassionate appointment pursuant to death of his father while on service. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1. The father of the petitioner was working as Unarmed Police Constable, Traffic Department, Surat City. However, during the service period, he died on 1.11.1995. 2.2. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor, and, therefore, he did not prefer any application seeking compassionate appointment. However, on attaining majority, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment since he was possessing requisite qualifications for being appointed on the post of his deceased father. The widow mother of the petitioner did not make any application since she was serving as a Government Employee at Surat District Court. After various correspondences, ultimately the request of the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No.2 on the grounds that the family income of the petitioner is higher than what is eligible for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment. The second ground was that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner never applied for compassionate appointment. Furthermore, as the mother of the petitioner has been working as a Government employee, there could not be any hardship to the family on account of death of its breadwinner. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the said communication/order, the petitioner preferred the present application. SCA/8812/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. Ms.S.R.Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that respondent authorities have committed grave error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the Government Resolution dated 7th September, 2002. Relying on said Government Resolution, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the said Government Resolution is apparently applicable to the present petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. 4. I have gone through the records, the Government Resolutions and the averments made in the memo of petition. It appears that the learned advocate for the petitioner has made an endeavor to take advantage of G.R.dated 7.9.2002. However, the date of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is 28th February, 2002, the date on which the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000 was in force. Therefore, as per clause 9 of the said Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India And Another v. Vikas Dubey and others, (2007) 9 SCC 579. 5. In view of the above, the view taken by the authorities is in consonance with the policy, and the right of compassionate appointment is neither statutory right nor the fundamental right and, therefore, this Court is of the view that no error whatsoever has been committed by the respondent authorities and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. SCA/8812/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Amit/-