HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11114/2017
Muneem Ram Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Surajmal Choudhary,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Barkhera, Tehsil Chaksu,
District Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its
Chairman, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Director,
Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Assistant Engineer O. And M., Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Chaksu, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praikshit Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/03/2022 Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"In view of the above cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case it is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, may further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-12) and respondents may kindly be directed to sympathetically consider candidature of petitioner on compassionate ground.
Respondents are also directed to consider the review petition submitted by mother of the petitioner.
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:08:12 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-11114/2017] the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner expired on 29.09.2009 and immediately after death of the father of the petitioner, petitioner's mother submitted an application for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner but the application for compassionate appointment was kept pending by the respondents with the observation that the same shall be considered after the age of 18 years of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that after attaining the age of 18 years, petitioner submitted an application on 15.01.2014, but this time, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2014 without assigning any reason. Hence, he knocked the doors of this Court for seeking directions against the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to him. Learned counsel further submits that when reply was submitted by the respondents, an objection was taken that elder brother of the petitioner was already in service and as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions laid down in the aforesaid rules as his elder brother is already serving in Govt. department. Learned counsel also submits that the elder brother of the petitioner is not supporting his family and he is residing separately so there is no one in the family to take care of other family members.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Santoshi Bai Vs. (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:08:12 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-11114/2017] State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. in WPS No.4711 of 2021 decided on 07.09.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in view of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as his elder brother is already serving in Government Department.
Heard. Considered the arguments of both sides. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner expired on 29.09.2009 and application for getting compassionate appointment was submitted by the mother of the petitioner when petitioner was minor. After attaining the age of majority, petitioner submitted his application on 15.01.2014 and this time, the matter was rejected by the respondents on 30.12.2014.
Instead of challenging the impugned order dated 30.12.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents (Annexures 13 & 15) and when no orders were passed by the respondents, then the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing instant petition on 07.07.2017.
This Court is of the view that as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as his elder brother is already in Government service. There is no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the elder brother of the petitioner is residing separately and is not supporting his family members, hence, no direction or order can be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.
There is no force in the writ petition, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:08:12 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-11114/2017] Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J HEENA GANDHI/39 (Downloaded on 05/04/2022 at 09:08:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)