Prashantbhai Bhilaram Pardesi (Dhobi) vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & 1 Other(s)

N.V.Anjaria, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadyay for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate

Mr.Hemang Shah for the respondent â€" Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.

The prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, reads as under.

“to direct the present Respondent Corporation to consider the case of the present petition for appointment on compassionate ground as a legal heirs

of deceased employee by holding and declaring that the present petitioner is entitled for the appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the

Rules, Regulations and settlements prevailing at the time of application made by the petitioner.â€​

Noticing the facts the petitioner was employed Corporation as Conductorof the case, father of under the respondent â€" with effect from 01st 23rd

30th September, 1989. At that time, petitioner was minor being his date of birth to be 23rd December, 1980. Therefore, mother of the petitioner made

an application dated 15th July, 1996 to respondent No.2 â€" Divisional Controller of the Corporation requesting that her son â€" the petitioner studying

in standard 9, may be considered for giving appointment on compassionate basis after completion of his studies. This application was repeated with

representation dated June, 2000. Thereafter the present petitioner himself made application dated January, 2001.

3.1 Pursuant to the above, the petitioner was asked to fill up the application form which the petitioner did to complete the formalities. However, since

no response was received after considerable time from the respondent â€" Corporation, after issuing legal notice; petitioner has approached this Court

by way of present petition making the prayer as aforesaid.

The petition was contested by filing affidavit-in-reply by the Corporation.

4.1 While learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been kept pending

since long, it creates prejudice to his right to be appointed, on the other hand learned senior advocate for the Corporation submitted that the respondent

â€" Corporation had framed policy for giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employees dying in harness and in that regard

Resolution dated 17th May, 2014 was passed, which was pursuant to judgment of this Court dated 30th November, 2013 in Ritaben Lalitbhai Nakum

v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation being Special Civil Application No.3977 of 2013 and allied petitions. As per the policy reflected in the

aforementioned Resolution dated 17th May, 2014, 33% of the vacancies would be filled up by granting appointment on compassionate ground while

the remaining 67% would be filled up through direct recruitment. The policy Resolution also stipulates that such vacancies shall be filled up only when

the fresh recruitment is undertaken by issuing advertisement by the Corporation. It was further pointed out that in addition to the above, it is further

contemplated in the policy that an employee who dies after the cut-off date of 05th July, 2011, in such case the legal heir of such employee would be

entitled to a lump sum compensation only. For those employees who have expired prior to 05th July, 2011, the legal heir concerned could exercise

option either to avail lump sum compensation or to have the actual appointment on compassionate basis. The father of the petitioner died prior to the

aforesaid cut-off date, therefore option was available to the petitioner.

4.2 After contending that the appointment on compassionate basis is neither vested right nor such appointment is a source of employment, following

was highlighted from the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present petition.

“... The application of the petitioner was considered and kept pending on file. Since the issue of “general ban†was clarified by the State

Government in Special Civil Application no.5722/2004, the application of the petitioner was kept pending in the mechanical general cadre.

Subsequently it was decided by the Corporation that in all those application pending for compassionate appointment in mechanical general post be

classified. Thus an applicant possessing ITI certificate as on date of application would be entitle to seek compassionate appointment in mechanical

general post. Whereas, as applicant not possessing ITI certificate as on date of submission of application would be entitled to seek compassionate

appointment on the post of peon. Thus the application of the petitioner was considered and kept pending for the post of peon wherein he is listed at

serial no. 9.â€​

4.3 It was stated that the Corporation produced communication dated 11th July, 2014 to the petitioner pursuant to policy for giving benefit to know

whether the petitioner wanted lump sum compensation or was desirous to be appointed on compassionate basis. It appears that petitioner did not

exercise this option, therefore his application was included under the option of availing a job in the Corporation. The Corporation stated that application

of the petitioner has been pending and that as per seriatum, the same would be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.

Thus, the position emerges from the facts of the case and the stand taken by the respondent Corporation is that there is no gainsaying that the

petitioner was called upon to exercise option and his option for appointment on compassionate basis was received by the Corporation and the same is

pending in form of application which would be considered in accordance with the policy of the corporation. 33% vacant posts are being filled up

through the appointment on compassionate grounds as averred on oath and as reflected in the policy stipulations. The case of the petitioner is pending,

however, the only hurdle is that other similar applications which were made prior in point of time are yet to be acted upon. The petitioner could not

march over the applications which are prior in point of time. His case is not rejected but is kept pending in a queue, to be considered at an appropriate

time.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of by observing that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be considered by

the Corporation under its policy by keeping such claim alive until the turn of the petitioner arrives to be appointed. As and when the petitioner’s

turn comes he would be given compassionate appointment on the post of Peon.

With the above observation, this petition is partly allowed and disposed of.