SCA/12034/1994 of JAYANTI MAVJIBHAI GOHEL Vs GOVT OF GUJARAT & 3 on 20 December 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see thejudgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of thejudgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as tothe interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Ordermade thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

JAYANTI MAVJIBHAI GOHEL vs GOVT OF GUJARAT & 3

Appearence: None present for Petitioners “Mr. D.A.Bambhania for the respondents.”

Coram : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE

ORAL JUDGEMENT

The prayer of the petitioner is to the extent that therespondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner oncompassionate ground. The further prayer which has been added bythe amendment is to the extent that clause 6 of the guidelines ofthe circular dated 1.3.84 be declared ultravires of the articles 14and 16 of the Constitution in so far as it does not include brotherfor compassionate appointment. The petitioner is the brother ofRanjit Mavjibhai Gohel who was a permanent employee of respondentno.4. Late Shri Ranjit Mavjibhai Gohel entered in the Governmentservice in November 1978 and he died on 28.9.92 and at the time whenhe died he was a Jr. Clerk. The petitioner claims the appointmenton compassionate ground in place of his deceased brother. It is notin dispute that Ranjit left behind him, his wife Smt. Kalpana. Thepetitioner contended that the wife of late Shri Ranjit has given adeclaration to the effect that she has given up her claim forappointment on compassionate ground as being legal heir of thedeceased. Guideline no.6 of the circular referred to above providesthat not more than one person in the family of a deceased Governmentservant should be given such compassionate appointment, such personshould be a son, daughter,wife husband(as the case may be) of thedeceased Government servant. The brother of the deceased Governmentservant was not included in the family of the deceased Governmentservant and rightly so. This circular regulate the appointment oncompassionate ground. Compassionate appointment is not a mode ofrecruitment. But in order to provide financial assistance to afamily whose earning member has died while in service, thisprovision has been made. Though otherwise, such appointment may bein violation of the provisions of articles 14 and and 16 of theConstitution but looking to the nature of appointment and thepurpose for which the appointment is given, it can be said to be areasonable restriction on the fundamental right. The object soughtto be achieved by making this definition is that the family whichsuddenly comes under stress becauseof the death of the earningmember thereof, may not face financial crisis. But this benefitcannot be extended or stretched to the extent to provide thisappointment to the broither of the deceased ; otherwise the veryobject and purpose of making such a provision will be defeated or itmay be misused or the very purpose of such provision may be defeatedby the persons who are otherwise not entitled to the same. I failto see how guideline no. 6 of the circular which excludes thebrother for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground isarbitrary and ultra vires articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Heirs of the deceased who are in class-1 have been provided thebenefits of the circular. Mainly because the heirs of class-1 ofdeceased Government servant survives declares or otherwise giving adeclaration in favour of the brother, he does not become entitledfor or eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. It is veryeasy to get such a declaration from the wife of deceased more sowhen in the present case the deceased was married just few months

before his death. In the presence of class-1 heir, the restrictionof the benefit of compassionate appointment to class-1 heir seems tobe very reasonable and in consonance with the scheme of thecompassionate appointment. In the circumstances, the petitioner hasfailed to make out a case in his favour. In the circumstancesguideline 6 of the said circular is perfectly legal and does notsuffer from viceany discrimination. The brother of the petitionerdoes not fall within the eligibility criteria as provided in theguidelines for giving compassionate appointment. The writ petitiontherefore, fails and is dismissed.

Rule discharged. No order as to costs.for correction pl.see original.