SCA/10301/2001 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10301 of 2001 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 ? ========================================= = TARUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI VAGHELA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ========================================= =Appearance : MR PRADEEP PATEL for the Petitioner MR HEMANT MAKWANA, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 13/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this case, the wife of the deceased Chimanbhai Vaghela, who expired on 4.8.1998, was in employment on the relevant date. She being in employment since 25.1.1983, appointment claimed by the petitioner has not been favoured by the respondents. SCA/10301/2001 2/2 JUDGMENT 2. The compassionate appointment as claimed is not a right of succession. This is an appointment which is offered by the Government for sustenance of the family of a Government servant living in harness. 3. In the given facts of the case, when a lady of the house- widow of late Shri Chimanbhai Vaghela, was already gainfully employed and was in employment at the time of the death, harness is not seen and that being the position, no favourable order is made. The petition is liable to be dismissed and hence, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost. 4. A case is made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that such appointments were made and he tried to raise a question on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution. If any appointment is made, which is not in consonance with the policy of compassionate appointment, then that would be illegal and an illegality does not come in the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, the argument is not liable to be considered and hence rejected. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar