Naveen Kumar Doganwa vs The Chief Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 9308 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 284/2021

Naveen Kumar Doganwa S/o Late Shri Subhash Chandra Doganwa, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Balai, Resident Of 13 M L D Gharsana, Dist. Shri Ganganagar At Present C/o Rajendraprasad, Ward No. - 46, Ambedkar Nagar, Fathehpur Road, Sikar.

----Appellant Versus

1. The Chief Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur.

2. The Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur.

3. The Deputy Director, Personnel (Headquarfter), Jodhpur Discom, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Sumer Singh Gaur.
For Respondent(s)         :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                          Judgment / Order

18/07/2022

This intra court appeal is directed against order dated

02.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the

respondents to provide him compassionate appointment in place

of his father, who expired while in service has been dismissed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Subhash

Chandra Doganwa, father of the appellant while holding the post

of Executive Engineer in Jodhpur Discom passed away on

(2 of 4) [SAW-284/2021]

15.12.2012. The appellant, after the death of his father submitted

an application to the respondents seeking appointment on

compassionate grounds as per the provisions of Rajasthan

Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased

Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter Rules, 1996). The

application was favourably considered and offer of appointment

was made in favour of the appellant vide order dated 06.02.2014.

The appellant was directed to join on the post of Assistant-I within

a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the order. The

appellant submitted an application dated 04.03.2014 requesting

extension in joining time to pursue his B.Tech / B.E. course.

However, the respondents did not respond to the petitioner's

application.

The appellant, after completion of B.Tech / B.E. course by

way of representations dated 07.12.2015 and 26.10.2016,

requested the respondents to offer him appointment on

compassionate grounds as per this educational qualification but to

no avail. The appellant filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the

denial of appointment on compassionate grounds, which was

dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated

02.03.2021.

Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the object

of the Rules, 1996 is to provide a helping hand to the family of

deceased employee in harness and this help should be in such

nature that the family may maintain itself with minimum dignity.

Therefore, the request of the appellant to appoint him on a

suitable post as per his educational qualification ought to have

been accepted by the respondents. He further submitted that

(3 of 4) [SAW-284/2021]

there is no provision which thwarts a claim for compassionate

appointment as per the educational qualification. In the

alternative, it was submitted that offer of appointment made to

the petitioner on 06.02.2014 against the post of Assistant-I may

be revived and direction be issued to the respondents to permit

the appellant to join.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

In the matter of Central Coalfields Limited through its

Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden Oraon 2021

SCC OnLine SC 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse

of reasonable period as the concession of such employment is not

a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future.

The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family

to get over the financial crisis and penury that it faces at the time

of death of sole bread winner. Compassionate appointment cannot

be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the

crisis is over.

We are in agreement with the reasons given by Single Bench

for dismissing the writ petition. The application for compassionate

appointment filed by the appellant in the year 2012 was accepted

and he was offered appointment on the post of Assistant-I vide

order dated 06.02.2014. The offer was not availed by the

appellant. Admittedly, the appellant and his family have survived

without accepting the offer for the post of Assistant-I for all these

years, by this time, the crisis that had befallen. It can be

presumed on account of sudden demise of the appellant's father is

over, and hence, the appellant's request for compassionate

appointment as per educational qualification (B.Tech./B.E.) or by

(4 of 4) [SAW-284/2021]

reviving the order dated 06.02.2014 cannot be acceded to. 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 that the crisis faced by the

family must have been averted with the passage of time. The

impugned order dated 02.03.2021 does not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity warranting interference in this intra court

appeal, which fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    61-Prashant/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)