AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biren Vaishnav, J
The main prayer in the petition reads as under:
"9(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to make payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner as per the Resolution dated 5/7/2011 issued by the Government with interest at reasonable rate."
The petitioner-wife of Fuljibhai Gamit has filed this petition claiming compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
The facts are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 06.10.1997 and died in harness on 18.04.2007 after rendering 10 years and 12 days of service.
3.2 The case of the petitioner is that she was getting Rs.9,000/- as pension. On the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, in addition to she being a widow, she had three minor sons. The sons being minor, one of which was residing separately, one of the minor son initially applied on 15.05.2007 for appointment on compassionate grounds and having realized that he was minor, he withdrew the same.
Mr.Manoj Shrimali learned advocate for the petitioner contended that in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 which provided for compensation to the heirs of the deceased employee, the petitioner was entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs. He would invite attention of this Court to the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, particularly, Clause 3(1) thereof. Inviting attention of this Court to Clauses 5 and 6 of the said Government Resolution, Mr.Shrimali would contend that in case of applications which are pending, the same had to be decided in accordance with the prevalent scheme of compensation. The petitioner's son being a minor, had withdrawn his application for appointment on compassionate grounds, and therefore, it cannot be termed as a rejection so as to disqualify the petitioner for compensation.
Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP has drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply and contended that the employee died in the year 2007. A minor son applied on 15.05.2007 and withdrew the application on 20.05.2009 on realizing that he was minor on the said date. The son's date of birth is 16.06.1991. On attaining majority on 16.06.2009, he did not make fresh application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's application on 03.10.2011 for compensation was rejected on 14.10.2011, by which, it was informed that since the son of the petitioner has withdrawn his application on 20.05.2009, the same amounts to deemed rejection and therefore, in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, particularly para 6 thereof which says that once the applications were rejected, the resolution of 05.07.2011 would not be applicable and this would not qualify the petitioner for claiming compensation.
Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it will be necessary to note a few dates.
6.1 The death of the petitioner's husband occurred on 18.04.2007.
6.2 A minor son of the petitioner whose date of birth is 16.06.1991, applied for compassionate appointment on 15.05.2007. He withdrew the application on 20.05.2009.
6.3 He attained the majority on 16.06.2009. No fresh application for appointment on compassionate grounds was made by him. The policy of compassionate appointment envisages that a minor who attains majority, should apply for appointment on compassionate grounds within six months from the date of him attaining majority. Admittedly, the petitioner's son did not so apply in accordance with the policy.
6.4 After the death of the petitioner's husband in the year 2007, four years thereafter, the petitioner-wife on 03.10.2011, applied for compensation seeking refuge under the policy of 05.07.2011.
Mr.Shrimali having argued that his application was pending and/or there was no rejection, is without merit on two counts. Firstly, the son having applied, finding himself to be minor, withdrew the application. He did not apply again within the stipulated time so required by the policy. Now he cannot contend that there is no rejection of the application and therefore he is saved by an exception and trying to bring same under such an exception is without merit. Even though, admittedly, one of the member of the family was eligible for appointment on the compassionate ground, he withdrew the application, did not apply on attaining majority, cannot now take advantage of a subsequent policy of 05.07.2011 four years after the death of the employee and claim any relief.
On this count, this without merit and the same.