State of Gujarat vs Desai Rajubhai Lilabhai and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. N.J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Kiran G. Pandit, leaned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Manish J Patel, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India and Others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, wherein the Apex Court has held in para-23 as under:

Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penurious, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the Respondent''s family is not one of destitution, the Appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607 as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs. 19,183 towards liabilities); a sum of Rs. 2055 p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs. 5855 (monthly pension of Rs. 2055+Rs.3800 p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs. 4,57,607). The competent fact-finding authority o the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the Respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.

On the other hand, Mr. Kiran G. Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered on 9th March, 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2785 of 2010 in State of Gujarat v. Budhabhai A. Chavda. We are of the opinion that since the learned Single Judge has only remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for deciding the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the prevailing policy at the time when the Petitioner submitted the application on 17th March,2005, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. But we add that the concerned authority shall also consider the above-mentioned decision cited by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 while taking the decision in the matter.

Since the Appeal filed was pending before this Court, the time limit framed by the learned Single Judge could not be complied with by the Appellant. Therefore, we direct that the concerned authority shall take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. With the aforesaid observations, this Appeal stands finally disposed of. As the Appeal is disposed of, Civil Application No. 1746 of 2011 does not survive. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.