Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Lata vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5032/2022
Smt. Lata S/o Late Vishnu, aged about 30 Years, Resident of
Gulab Bag Jalori Gate Eidgah Jodhpur District Jodhpur Rajasthan.
342001. At present residing Bapu Colony Harijan Bast Gua Shala
Ke Pas Barmer District Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Department of
Local Self Government Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department of Local Bodies, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. The Municipal Corporation Jodhpur through its Municipal
Commissioner Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
21/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
rejection of her application seeking compassionate appointment by
order dated 03.06.2021 (Annex.5).
It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that petitioner's
mother-in-law was working on the post of Sweeper and died on
01.09.2018. After her death, petitioner's husband i.e. Sh. Vishnu
applied for compassionate appointment in place of his mother,
however, before appointment could be accorded, he died on
(2 of 4) [CW-5032/2022]
16.12.2019. The petitioner, on account of death of her husband,
applied for compassionate appointment with the respondents
being the daughter-in-law of deceased Government servant Smt.
Madhu, however, her application has been rejected by order
impugned while observing that under Rule 2 (c) of the Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996, the widowed daughter-in-law
is not included.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
issue raised in the present petition, is squarely covered by order in
the case of Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.9177/2010 decided on 12.09.2011.
The definition of 'widowed daughter' includes 'widowed
daughter-in-law' and therefore, denial by the respondents in this
regard is not justified. Further submissions have been made that
the order in the case of Smt. Pinki has been upheld by the Division
Bench in DBSAW No.1915/2011 decided on 05.01.2012.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that
the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge on the definition
of dependent by coming to the conclusion that the widowed
daughter would include widowed daughter-in-law, is still open to
interpretation/determination as the Division Bench, though
dismissed the appeal, however, has left the question open to be
adjudicated in future. Further submissions have been made that
the Division Bench decided the appeal by referring to the family
circumstances, though the family circumstances in the present
case also may be similar, the legal aspect needs to be decided.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties and have perused the material available on record.
(3 of 4) [CW-5032/2022]
The status of the petitioner is not in dispute, wherein she is
the widowed daughter-in-law of deceased Government servant,
Smt. Madhu, and is seeking compassionate appointment, as
though initially her husband Sh. Vishnu claimed compassionate
appointment, however, before the same could be accorded to him,
he died.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki
(supra) inter-alia came to the following conclusion:
".... The legal position that emerges from the entire
discussion is that for the purpose of the Rules of 1996 the
term "widowed daughter" includes a "Widowed daughter-
in-law", as such, she is a "dependent" as per Rule 2 (c) of
the Rules of 1996. This inclusion serves the purpose of the
Rules of 1996 and it is in consonance to the objects of the
Rules. This inclusion is also not having any effect of
amendment in the Rules. On the other hand, non-inclusion
of "widowed daughter-in-law" in the ambit of dependents
is having adverse effect on the purpose and objects of the
statute concerned, as happening in present set of facts."
The Division Bench, in appeal arising out of judgment in the
case of Smt. Pinki (supra), while deciding the appeal observed as
infra:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record of the case, we are not inclined to
interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Without going into the legal niceties and strict
interpretation of law which we consider it improper to
examine in the facts of the case, we are rather obliged to
feel that substantial justice would be done, if the State
Government implements the writ issued by the Writ court
by giving the respondent appointment in the State
Government services.
It cannot be disputed that now there is no one in the
family of Mohan Lal to look after the surviving members
except respondent i.e. daughter-in-law because the elder
male members of family died in a road accident, leaving
alone the respondent with her two minor daughters and
two old ladies. In such circumstances, the respondent is
given appointment, then she would be able to take care of
surviving members of family out of her earning. In our
opinion, therefore, it is a fit case in which State instead of
filing an appeal should have complied with the Writ issued
by the Single Judge and given appointment to the
(4 of 4) [CW-5032/2022]
respondent. The financial hardship occurred to the
surviving family members in this case is writ large and
therefore, the State must act as an honest person and
provide some solace to the survivors of the family.
We hasten to add that we have not been swayed
away only by the emotional aspect of the matter, at the
same time, we feel that we would examine the legal issue
in appropriate cases as and when occasion arises in future.
Since learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellant (State) too has also agreed to this
suggestion, we do not wish to embark upon the
examination of the legal issues arising in the case.
To conclude, we do no consider it appropriate to
interfere in the writ issued by the learned Single Judge
and keeping the legal issue open for its examination in
appropriate case in future, decline to interfere and dismiss
the appeal.
Let the order of learned Single Judge be
implemented within three months from the date of our
order by the State."
In view of the fact that the Division Bench, though keeping
the legal issue open has dismissed the appeal arising out of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, insofar as this Court is
concerned, it needs to follow the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench and in case the respondents seek any remedy, it can seek
the same in view of observations made by the Division Bench from
the appropriate forum.
In view of above discussion, the petition filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 03.06.2021
(Annex.5) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for granting
compassionate appointment ignoring the fact that she is widowed
daughter-in-law of deceased Government servant Smt. Madhu.
Needful may be done by the competent authority within a period
of four weeks.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
140-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
