HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13598/2015 Gaurav Vyas S/o Shri Upendra Kumar Vyas, aged about 29 years, R/o VPO Tamasa, Saroda, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Raj.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Raj.
3. Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, Raj.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara, District Banswara, Raj.
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District Banswara, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati
Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawna Jangid
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
PRONOUNCED ON ::: 16 /09/2022
RESERVED ON ::: 14/09/2022
Briefly stated facts of the case are that Smt. Kalpana Vyas, mother of the petitioner while holding the post of Teacher at Government School, Vamasa, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District Banswara passed away on 22.05.1992. The father of the petitioner is a government servant. The petitioner being a minor, through his father filed an application dated 21.06.1992 addressed to Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara seeking (Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-13598/2015] appointment on compassionate ground when petitioner attains majority as per the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1975'). The petitioner on becoming major submitted an application dated 29.03.2007 along with requisite documents to Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents rejected the application vide order dated 24.07.2014 on the ground that father of the petitioner was working as government servant citing Rule 5 of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'). Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2014, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on death of his mother has rightful claim to be appointed on compassionate grounds against the post of LDC. It was further submitted that the object of rules for compassionate appointment is to extend a helping hand to the kin of the deceased. The petitioner possessing the required qualification is capable of performing well against the post on which appointment is sought and his application for compassionate should have been accepted. The counsel urged that the Rules which apply in the present case are that of 1975 and therefore, the application of petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds ought to have been accepted as the bar under Rule 5 of Rules of 1996 does not apply. In support of aforesaid contentions, counsel placed reliance on case of Naveen Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan (Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM) (3 of 6) [CW-13598/2015] (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4285/2004) rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was preferred by the petitioner after close to two decade had passed after the demise of petitioner's mother. The counsel further submitted that the appointment on compassioante grounds is not a source of recruitment and is an exception carved out to help the family in penurious financial condition. The counsel urged that the application seeking compassionate appointment is to be considered keeping the prevailing scheme in vogue and therefore, the application was rightly rejected by the respondents considering it in light of Rules of 1996, especially rule 5 of Rules of 1996.
Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record.
Factors to be taken into consideration for providing employment to the dependents of a deceased employee on compassionate ground are well settled. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, Honorable the Supreme Court observed that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood (compassionate appointment).It was further observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be claimed or offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-13598/2015] The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree (2021) 12 SCC 20 as under:
"(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."
In the light of enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner's mother while working on the post of Teacher at Government School, Vamasa, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District Banswara passed away on 22.05.1992. The petitioner (minor) through his father vide communication dated 21.06.1992 intimated the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara that the application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner be considered as he attains majority. The petitioner after attaining majority sought compassionate appointment through application dated 29.02.2007 which was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2014 on the ground that rule 5 of prevailing Rules of 1996 impedes an applicant whose family member is in service. Further, the (Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-13598/2015] application was filed after so many years, so it can be safely assumed that the financial crisis had befallen.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774 held as under:-
"The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same."
It is settled proposition of law that the norms/scheme/rules prevailing on the date of application are to be considered while examining an application for compassionate appointment. Also, no person gains an unfettered right to be appointed on compassionate grounds after demise of a family member.
It has been held in judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Doganwa v. The Chief Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur (D.B. S.A.W. No.284/2021) that the whole objective of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the passing away of the sole bread winner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after the lapse of a significant time gap because it can be presumed (Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-13598/2015] that the crisis faced by the family must have been averted with the passage of time.
As a result of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. In the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J Ravi Kh/-
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:17:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)