Jagdishbhai Mansukhbhai Vaghela vs Deputy Engineer and Others

C.L. Soni, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.5.2010 at Annexure-C passed by respondent No. 3 whereby the application of the petitioner to give him appointment on compassionate ground is rejected. It is stated in the said order that the family of the petitioner got Rs. 4,58,936.00 as retirement benefits on the death of the deceased employee. It is further stated that two sons being Dipak Vaghela and Dinesh Vaghela have got annual income of Rs. 9,600.00 and Rs. 11,000.00 respectively and, therefore, as per the policy of the State Government dated 29.3.2007 for compassionate appointment, family of the deceased employee could not be said to be placed in pitiable financial condition. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit appearing for the petitioner submitted that the District Development Officer, Surendranagar has issued certificate at annexure E page 46 that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is pitiable. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit submitted that the said certificate was issued by the District Development Officer after considering the benefit of Rs. 4,61,831.00 received by the family towards Gratuity, GPF etc. on death of the deceased employee and, therefore, such certificate was required to be taken as final for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit also submitted that two brothers named in the impugned order never resided with the deceased employee and, therefore, they could not be considered to be part of the family of the deceased employee. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit submitted that it is not stated in the impugned order as to what is the criteria for considering condition of the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness as pitiable. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit therefore submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside so that the concerned authority can reconsider the matter in light of the policy dated 29.3.2007 and in view of the certificate issued by the District Development Officer.

As against the above arguments, learned A.G.P. Shri Raval submitted that the concerned authority who has passed the impugned order at Annexure C has well considered the income of the family of the deceased employee and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was not pitiable and, therefore, no illegality could be found with the impugned order. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that in the certificate at page 46, the District Development Officer has considered the benefits only of gratuity and other dues but has not considered the income of other two brothers of the deceased and, therefore, it can not be said that the impugned order is passed without due consideration of the policy dated 29.3.2007. He, thus, urged to dismiss the petition.

2.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that it was for the State Authority to consider the case of the petitioner according to its policy.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case including the impugned order, it appears that the District Development Officer has issued certificate at annexure E certifying that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was pitiable. It also appears that in such certificate, the income of the above referred two brothers is not considered.

Learned advocate Mr. Pandit pointed out that while issuing certificate annexure E, income of the two brothers was not considered by the District Development Officer because those two brothers have never resided with the deceased employee and they were holding separate ration card and residing separately from the deceased employee. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit has taken the Court through copies of ration card placed with the petition at page 21, 23 and 25. Learned advocate Shri Pandit therefore pointed out that the District Development Officer has rightly not considered the income of those two brothers and, therefore, it was not open to the concerned authority i.e. Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Housing Development Department to consider the income of said two brothers while passing the impugned order.

It appears to the Court that though the income of those two brothers was considered to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the policy dated 29.3.2007, however, it is not coming out from any material placed on record or from the affidavit in reply filed to oppose the petition that what was the criteria fixed for assessing the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee as pitiable. Though the impugned order records that the family members of the deceased had received Rs. 4,58,936.00 and two brothers have annual income of Rs. 9600.00 and Rs. 11000.00 respectively, however, it is not discussed as to what was the criteria fixed for concluding that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was not pitiable.

Learned A.G.P. Mr. Ronak Raval could not point out any such criteria. Therefore, even if the income of those two brothers was considered, concerned authority was required to discuss as to how the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was not pitiable.

Under the circumstances, the matter needs to be sent back to the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Housing Development Department for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh in light of the policy of the State Government dated 29.3.2007 for compassionate appointment. It will be open to the petitioner to present his case before the authority to point out that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was pitiable. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 at Annexure-C is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Housing Development Department for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to represent his case before the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Housing Development Department. The Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Housing Development Department is directed to decide the application of the petitioner afresh within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct Service is Permitted.