IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12704 of 2013

================================================================ SONALBEN WD/O CHETANBHAI SHUKLA....Petitioner(s) Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR J V BHAIRAVIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2 ===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

Date : 11/12/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT

• 1. Rule. Learned Advocate Shri J.V.Bhairavia waives service of Rule for the Respondents.
• 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the prayer for compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the basis of the standing orders of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (now known as "Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited).
• 3. The short point involved in the matter is that, admittedly, the petitioner is the widow of deceased Chetanbhai Biharibhai Shukla who was working with the Respondent Corporation as the helper and has expired on 19.3.2011. Therefore, as per the

scheme of and the general standing orders produced on record, such compassionate appointments are made by the Respondent Corporation. Moreover Clause-9 of the Standing Order provide:

"Employment of the dependents."

It is on the basis of this the claim for compassionate appointment is made by the petitioner. However, there are other proceedings including the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act between the petitioner and the children on one hand and in-laws on the other hand and the settlement was arrived at which has been recorded and produced on record. The clause of the settlement recorded clearly states that the applicant has made an application for compassionate appointment and the son of the petitioner herein may be permitted to get such compassionate appointment and the other side (in-laws) will not raise any objection. Thus there was a compromise or the settlement recorded between the contesting parties. However, in the facts of the case, the Applicant / Petitioner who is the mother (widow) now desires to have such appointment in place of the son, who is residing with her and he has also stated by an affidavit that he has no objection if the appointment is given to the mother.

4. Therefore, learned Counsel Shri Bhairavia has also stated that the scheme is made as a welfare measure. However, he states that because of the order of compromise recorded by the court providing for employment to the son, the respondents are considering the same and therefore it is modified. Learned Advocate Shri Bhairavia states that if the court clarifies, they have no objection.

• 5. It is in these circumstances, it is clarified that the compromise which has been recorded specifically recording for providing employment to the son shall stand modified to the extent that instead of son, the petitioner mother may be considered for compassionate appointment and necessary undertaking shall be given by the petitioner as well as son that no claim would be made in future. The Respondents shall consider the said application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks.
• 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

JNW