M.R. Luhar vs State of Gujarat and Another

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Supehia for the Petitioner. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Shah appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondents. At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner and with No. objection from learned AGP, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

The facts of the case are that the father of the Petitioner died on 21.12.2003; the Petitioner applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds on 17.04.2004; the application of the Petitioner was rejected by an order dated 28.10.2005, which made the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 4508 of 2008, which came to be allowed by this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J) by judgment and order dated 09.09.2008. The court was pleased to direct the authorities to re-consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law. Instead of carrying out that direction, the authorities filed Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 2717 of 2009 before Division Bench of this Court. As there was delay in filing the appeal, Civil Application No. 314 of 2010 seeking con donation of delay of 409 days was filed, which was not allowed. That application was rejected by this Court by order dated 08.03.2010, thereby the authorities were obliged to consider the application of the Petitioner in view of the directions passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4508 of 2008.

It appears that the authorities were bent upon rejecting the application of the Petitioner because they again rejected the application of the Petitioner on the same ground by order dated 30.03.2010 relying upon notification dated 16.03.2005. The authorities could not have applied notification dated 16.03.2005 to the facts of the present case because the father of the Petitioner had died on 21.12.2003 and the application was filed by the Petitioner on 17.04.2004, which was rejected by order dated 28.10.2005 by relying upon notification dated 16.03.2005.

The rejection of the application even after the directions given by this Court, is a matter of serious concern. However, with a view to give an additional opportunity to the authorities to conduct themselves in accordance with law while quashing and setting aside order dated 30.03.2010, the matter is left to the discretion of the authorities to pass an order in accordance with law, meaning thereby without applying notification dated 16.03.2005 as the case of the Petitioner is prior to the issuance of that notification. The authority shall consider the case of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30.11.2010. In the event the authority pass an order adverse to the Petitioner, they must pass a speaking order setting out a cogent reason/s for the same.

At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner, the liberty is reserved in favour of the Petitioner. RULE is made absolute. There shall be No. order as to costs.

A copy of this judgment be made available to learned AGP Mr. Shah for its onward communication for compliance.