AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents-State.
By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - widow of the deceased, has sought lump-sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the new policy dated 5.7.2011 introduced by the State Government.
Brief facts of this case are that the husband of the petitioner died on 10.6.2010 while in service. At the time of death, husband of the petitioner was serving as Auditor (Class-III) in the office of the District Registrar at Jamnagar. After death, daughter of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.11.2011. This application came to be dismissed by the concerned authorities being time barred. The order of dismissal of application of the daughter of the petitioner was challenged before this Court in SCA No. 2857/2014. This Court, vide its order dated 6.1.2015 quashed and set aside the orders dated 30.11.2011 and 16.1.2013, vide which, application of the daughter of petitioner was declined. In this order, concerned authorities of the State Government were directed to decide the application for compassionate appointment made by the daughter of the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 5.7.2011, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the
order. However, after aforementioned decision, once again an application for compassionate appointment has been moved by the widow of the deceased. In this application, the widow has claimed lump-sum compensation in place of appointment. The respondents authorities vide its order dated 2.6.2015 dismissed the application moved by the widow of the deceased. This order has given reason to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present petition.
After notice, respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that as per para-6 of the G.R. dated 5.7.2011, the cases which have been decided before coming into operation of new policy cannot be re-opened.
Learned AGP has submitted that the case of the petitioner was time barred and has been rightly rejected vide order dated 30.11.2011 and 16.1.2013. Once the case has been considered and rejected by the respondents, on the same facts, second application claiming the benefits of new policy cannot be granted.
This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The husband of the petitioner has died on 10.6.2010. Thereafter, daughter of the deceased has made an application for compassionate appointment on 16.11.2011. This
application came to be dismissed by the respondents authorities vide their orders dated 30.11.2011 and 16.1.2013. It could be seen that the aforementioned orders have been quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2015. Meaning thereby that the aforementioned orders are not in existence and judgment has attained finality.
After the orders dated 30.11.2011 and 16.1.2013, are quashed and set aside, the case of the petitioner was required to be decided as per new policy as new policy has come in force on 5.7.2011. As per this new policy, though petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment, however, she was entitled to get lump-sum compensation. This Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents dated 2.6.2015, vide which, the application moved by the widow of the deceased has been rejected, could not sustain in view of the order passed in SCA No. 2857/2014.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.6.2015, vide which, application of the petitioner for lump-sum compensation in place of compassionate appointment has been rejected, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner as per new policy within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order. Rule made absolute. Direct service permitted.