Chagan Lal Nenama vs State And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 17117 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 17117 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chagan Lal Nenama vs State And Ors on 16 November, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Anoop Kumar Dhand

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7061/2017

Chagan Lal Nenama S/o Mokshi Nemama, By Caste Hindu R/o Village Khamera, Tehsil Ghatol District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Social Justice And Welfare Department, G-3/1, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Behind Rajmahal Palace, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Justice And Welfare Department, G-

3/1, Ambedkar Bhawan Rajmahal Residency Area, Behind Rajmahal Palace, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Director, General Administration, Social Justice And Welfare Department G-3/1 Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Behind Rajmahal Palace, Jaipur.

4. Assistant Director, Social Justice And Welfare Department, Banswara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Durga Ram Kawadia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

16/11/2021

Heard.

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.03.2021

has directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before

Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench to

decide the following questions:

"(i) Whether expression 'qualification' used in Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of

(2 of 3) [CW-7061/2017]

Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 is meant to cover a candidate's educational qualification only?

(ii) If answer to question No.(i) above is negative, then, in the fact of Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, whether a dependent having more than two children after the cut off date is eligible to be appointed."

It is noticed that the learned Single Judge has decided to

refer the above questions to the Larger Bench while not

agreeing with the view expressed by another Single Bench of

this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1697/2013- Gyan Chand

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide order dated 03.02.2014. It

is further noticed that the Division Bench of this Court vide

judgment dated 03.05.2018 passed in D.B. Special Appeal

(Writ) No.1505/2014 and other connect appeals has already

reversed the judgment passed in Gyan Chand's case (supra)

while observing as under:-

"12. The legal position therefore would be that on account of the Amendment Rules of 2005, such Service Rules which have been amended and amendment being to debar a person who has more than two children born on or after 1.6.2002 to be appointed, be it on compassionate basis or otherwise would be ineligible for appointment.

13. The philosophy behind the amendment needs to be understood. Compassionate appointment has to be granted where on account of the death of a Government servant while in service the family comes under a financial stress because the family members are dependent upon the Government servant. The intention was not to give employment to an unemployed family member.

14. The three cases are illustrative of the fact that the three claimants, being the son of the deceased Government employee, were married and father of three children when their father died. Two deceased Government employees were Beldar, the lowest paid

(3 of 3) [CW-7061/2017]

employees. Being married and having three children the three claimants would be earning livelihood to support their wife and children. What dependence the three would have on their father? Two were Beldar, the lowest paid employee.

15. Be that as it may, the philosophy under the concept of compassionate appointment being ignored, the decision has to be as per Rules.

16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove the Rules prohibit grant of appointment even on compassionate basis when the claimants are the son of the deceased Government servant and are married having three children."