Muneem Ram Choudhary vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2734 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11114/2017

Muneem Ram Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Surajmal Choudhary,
By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Barkhera, Tehsil Chaksu,
District Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its
       Chairman, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2.     Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Director,
       Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3.     Assistant Engineer O. And M., Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
       Ltd., Chaksu, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praikshit Singh Shekhawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

31/03/2022

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"In view of the above cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case it is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, may further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-12) and respondents may kindly be directed to sympathetically consider candidature of petitioner on compassionate ground.

Respondents are also directed to consider the review petition submitted by mother of the petitioner.

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in

(2 of 4) [CW-11114/2017]

the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the

petitioner expired on 29.09.2009 and immediately after death of

the father of the petitioner, petitioner's mother submitted an

application for granting compassionate appointment to the

petitioner but the application for compassionate appointment was

kept pending by the respondents with the observation that the

same shall be considered after the age of 18 years of the

petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that after attaining the age

of 18 years, petitioner submitted an application on 15.01.2014,

but this time, the respondents rejected the application of the

petitioner vide order dated 30.12.2014 without assigning any

reason. Hence, he knocked the doors of this Court for seeking

directions against the respondents to provide compassionate

appointment to him. Learned counsel further submits that when

reply was submitted by the respondents, an objection was taken

that elder brother of the petitioner was already in service and as

per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of

Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), the petitioner does

not fulfil the conditions laid down in the aforesaid rules as his

elder brother is already serving in Govt. department. Learned

counsel also submits that the elder brother of the petitioner is not

supporting his family and he is residing separately so there is no

one in the family to take care of other family members.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed

reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Santoshi Bai Vs.

(3 of 4) [CW-11114/2017]

State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. in WPS No.4711 of 2021 decided on

07.09.2021.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that

in view of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is not entitled

to get compassionate appointment as his elder brother is already

serving in Government Department.

Heard. Considered the arguments of both sides.

It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner expired on

29.09.2009 and application for getting compassionate

appointment was submitted by the mother of the petitioner when

petitioner was minor. After attaining the age of majority, petitioner

submitted his application on 15.01.2014 and this time, the matter

was rejected by the respondents on 30.12.2014.

Instead of challenging the impugned order dated

30.12.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation before the

respondents (Annexures 13 & 15) and when no orders were

passed by the respondents, then the petitioner approached this

Court by way of filing instant petition on 07.07.2017.

This Court is of the view that as per Rule 5 of the Rules of

1996, petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment

as his elder brother is already in Government service. There is no

force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that

the elder brother of the petitioner is residing separately and is not

supporting his family members, hence, no direction or order can

be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.

There is no force in the writ petition, hence, the same is

hereby dismissed.

(4 of 4) [CW-11114/2017]

Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand

dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI/39

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)