AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai
We have heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Samir Gohil, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
Though the appeal is listed for admission hearing today, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken this appeal for final disposal.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.482 of 2011.
The husband of the respondent Shri J. R. Dave was working as Helper in the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board. He died on 16.12.1993 due to electric shock while he was on duty. Thereafter, the respondent made an application for compassionate appointment. Instead of providing compassionate appointment, as per the Scheme of the appellants dated 13.12.1989, the respondent was granted compassionate payment of Rs.500/- per month from 17.12.1993 to 16.06.1994 as per G.S.O. dated 13.12.1989. The payment of Rs.500/- made to the respondent was stopped by the appellant w.e.f. 17.10.2009 on the ground that the respondent has attained the age of 45 years. The respondent challenged the order of appellants in Special Civil Application No.482 of 2011. The Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition of the respondent and directed the appellants to pay cash compensation to the respondent w.e.f. 17.10.2009 till 31.07.2011 within a period of one month and further directed the appellants to pay cash compensation of Rs.500/- per month till 31.07.2019 i.e. till date natural retirement of the husband of the respondent or in between in case if compassionate appointment is offered by the appellants to the respondent.
Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently urged that as per GSO dated 13.12.1989, the payment of compensation of Rs.500/- could be made to the respondent until she attains the age of 40 years. The said GSO has been amended by Circular dated 05.08.1997 by which the upper age limit of the dependents to be eligible for compassionate appointment is enhanced from 40 to 45 years. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to receive compassionate compensation upto the date she attained the age of 45 years. He placed reliance on paragraphs 1.1 (ii) and 1.3 of the GSO dated 13.12.1989 as well as the amended Circular dated 05.08.1997. He has, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside.
The GSO dated 13.12.1989 provided that the dependent is entitled for receiving the amount of compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment @ Rs.500/- per month if the dependent is less than 40 years of age. However, as per the amended Circular dated 05.08.1997, the upper age of the dependent should be read as 45 years. In the GSO dated 13.12.1989, we do not find that after attaining the age of 40 years, the dependent will become disentitle to receive the amount of cash compensation of Rs.500/- per month though no compassionate appointment has been offered to the respondent. In this regard, paragraph 2 of the GSO dated 13.12.1989 is very clear. The same is extracted below :-
2.0 The payment will be discontinued in the event of the following :-
(1) The dependent of the deceased employee being offered a job in the Board.
(2) The job offered by the Board is not accepted within the time limit stipulated for any reasons whatsoever.
(3) Any member or the deceased employee''s family getting a job outside the Board; and
(4) Beyond the date on which the employee concerned would have retired from the service but for his death, while in service.
Therefore, in our opinion, the payment of Rs.500/- could be discontinued only in the situation mentioned in paragraph 2 of the GSO dated 13.12.1989 or till the employee who has died would have retired from service if he would have been alive or dependent of the deceased employee is offered compassionate appointment. In this case, we find that though the employee had died on duty due to electric shock, but compassionate appointment has not been offered to the respondent. In lieu thereof, cash compensation of Rs.500/- per month was granted. The Circular dated 05.08.1997 of the appellants enhanced the upper age limit from 40 to 45 years but it could not restrict the payment till the age of 45 years which was not provided by the GSO dated 13.12.1989. Hence, in our opinion, Circular dated 05.08.1997 so far as it states that the payment of Rs.500/- per month is to be discontinued till the dependents reaches the age of 45 years being in violation of the Scheme cannot be given effect to.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The present Letters Patent Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application also stands dismissed.