Tushar Satishbhai Rana vs Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 05th February 2003 and 05th March 2004 as well as order dated 01st June 2004 communicated by the respondent No. 2 as per the orders issued by the respondent No. 1 and directing the respondents herein to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as the dependent of his deceased father Satishbhai Ranchhodbhai Rana.

It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner who was working with the respondent-authority died in harness and therefore, the petitioner made an application for giving him appointment on compassionate basis being his dependent.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-authority has erroneously rejected the request of the petitioner even though the father of the petitioner died in harness. According to him, when two other similarly situated persons have been granted appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner is also required to be granted the said benefit. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.

Mr. J.B. Pardiwala, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and submitted that considering the policy for compassionate appointment floated by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner is rightly denied the appointment on compassionate ground as his mother was serving in the primary school. It is submitted that merely because some wrong orders have been passed in favour of some other persons, they do not entitle the petitioner to claim similar benefit/relief which is otherwise found to be illegal. Mr. Pardiwala has relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram : M.R. Shah, J.) in the case of Khushbu Arvindbhai Pandya and Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat and Ors. rendered on 16th March 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 14666 of 2004 (unreported) and requested to dismiss the present petition.

Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, documents produced on record, the averments made in the petition as well as reply affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 and the rejoinder affidavit, it transpires that the petitioner is claiming appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father. It is required to be noted that the mother of the petitioner has a secured job and she is drawing a salary of Rs. 9794/- per month as a Teacher in a Primary School. Considering the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time and considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the impugned decisions rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment are in any way illegal and/or contrary to the scheme for compassionate appointment. It also cannot be said that the condition of the family on the death of the deceased employee was such which warrants compassionate appointment. Therefore, on merits, the respondents have rightly denied the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the appointment of two other persons by submitting that inspite of the fact that widow was serving, still compassionate appointment has been given and, therefore, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that denying the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was serving, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have come out with a case that the benefit of compassionate appointment to the aforesaid two persons as enumerated in the petition has been wrongly given. Even otherwise, considering the policy for compassionate appointment adopted by the respondent No. 1, the aforesaid two persons could not have been appointed on compassionate ground as the widow of the deceased employee were serving.

As held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, an employee cannot claim benefit of withdrawal of resignation wrongly given to others on the basis of equality. The Apex Court has further observed that the doctrine of discriminatory treatment is based upon existence of enforceable rights. It is further observed that Article 14 would apply only when individual discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. Under the circumstances, merely because some other persons are given appointment on compassionate ground wrongly, the petitioner cannot be claim similar treatment and/or relief on the ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the impugned orders of the respondents in denying the compassionate appointment to the petitioner are in any way illegal. It appears that the same are in consonance with the scheme for compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 1 - High Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.