Surendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2796 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2796 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Surendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 April, 2022

Bench: Sameer Jain

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6566/2003

Surendra Kumar Sharma Adopted Son Of Late Shri Kailash
Chandra Sharma, aged about 32 years R/o Tiwari Mohalla/lathiji
Ka Mohalla, Todaraising District Tonk.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education
       Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.     The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
       Tonk.
4.     Block Elementary Education Officer, Todaraising District
       Tonk.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Mamoon Khalid, Adv
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                         Judgment / Order

Reserved On 05/03/2022
Pronouncement On 01/04/2022

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate

appointment claiming himself to be adopted son and dependent of

the deceased Government Servant Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma

who died while in Government service.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner

is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma who died in an

accident on 11/04/2003 while in Government service. On

20/05/2003, the petitioner filed an application in prescribed form

(2 of 4) [CW-6566/2003]

alongwith all necessary documents for appointment on

compassionate ground being dependent of Mr. Kailash Chandra

Sharma. The petitioner also filed one Civil Suit against against

Smt. Vimal Devi, wife of the deceased Government Servant Mr.

Kailash Chandra Sharma for declaration and permanent injunction

regarding his adoption and permanent injunction. In the said Civil

Suit vide judgment dated 24/07/2003, it was declared that the

petitioner is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma. It is

contended that in spite of the said judgment, the claim of the

petitioner for compassionate appointment was not accepted by the

respondents on the premise that in all the educational

qualifications documents like marks sheets, character certificates

instead of name of late Kailash Chandra Sharma, name of the

biological father Mr. Giriraj Prasad Sharma was there which is

evident from Annexure 4 dated 16/06/2003. In this background,

the present writ petition was filed submitting that in the light of

judgment dated 24/07/2003 passed by the competent civil court

and on account that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983, the

petitioner being adopted son of the deceased Government

Servant, is entitled to be given compassionate appointment.

3. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that

the adoption was an afterthought as the same took place on

24/07/2003 i.e. fter death and not during lifetime of the deceased

Government servant and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to

avail benefit of compassionate appointment in terms of the

provision of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.

Secondly, the respondents have placed reliance upon the

application form submitted by the petitioner for compassionate

(3 of 4) [CW-6566/2003]

appointment (Ann.-3) and the letter dated 16/06/2003 of the

respondents (Ann.-4) from which it is evident that the petitioner

has shown himself to be aged about 32 years and married at the

time of submission of application form and that the name of Mr.

Kailash Chandra Sharma was also not reflecting as his father in his

marks sheets and character certificates etc. even when he claims

that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983 as per customs.

4. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the parties, scanned records of the writ

petition and has also gone through the judgments cited at bar.

5. Before addressing on the issue, this Court considers it

appropriate to go through the definition of the word 'Dependent'

as provided under Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 which

provides as under:-

" "Dependent" means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death."

6. On perusal of the said definition, it is abundantly clear that

to qualify as dependent for seeking the benefit of compassionate

appointment, the law mandates as under:-