Kshama Chaturvedi vs State Education Departmentors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6883 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6883 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 31 October, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Kshama Chaturvedi vs State Education Departmentors on 31 October, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7366/2013

Kshama Chaturvedi Daughter Of Late Shri Anand Prakash Chobe
W/o Shri Kuldeep Chaturvedi, 200/12, Bajaj Khana, Kota,
Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
       Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3.     District Education Officer Secondary, Jaisalmer.
4.     District Collector, Jaisalmer.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

31/10/2022

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and further be pleased to;'

(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents in not giving the compassionate appointment to the petitioner;

(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the respondents to give the compassionate appointment to the petitioner on any suitable post;

(2 of 4) [CW-7366/2013]

(c) any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that the deceased government

employee, while working on the post of Senior Teacher (English)

with the respondents-Department died on 29.11.2008. Thereafter,

the petitioner (unmarried daughter of the deceased) filed an

application on 12.12.2008 for giving her compassionate

appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996

(hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules of 1996'). After one year of

submitting the application the petitioner solemnized marriage on

01.12.2009 and almost for a period of four years the matter

remained pending and ultimately when the respondents decline to

give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground

under the Rules of 1996, the petitioner approached this court by

filing of present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

entitled for compassionate appointment, being unmarried

daughter of the deceased government employee and the

application in this regard was also filed by the petitioner with the

respondents within time but the respondents have not given the

compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the Rules of

1996.

In support of the contention counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court

at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Smt. Sonu Devi Vs.

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

(3 of 4) [CW-7366/2013]

No.9022/2014) decided on 10.02.2017, wherein the following

order was passed:-

"9.Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner who had applied as an unmarried daughter would be entitled to be appointed under the Rules 1996. If the submission of the counsel for the respondent is to be accepted then it would be a case where a dependant unmarried daughter even after appointment may not be allowed to get married, as the situation of a woman and her status may change, she cannot be deprived of her rightful claim under the Rules of 1996. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Seema (supra) is distinguishable as the same only relates to the case where a claimant was a married daughter at the time of death of the deceased Government Servant and she challenged Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The Court has not accepted the said petition and has refused to even examined the validity of the Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The same would, therefore, not applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (Supra) gives a guideline for finding as to what should be the date. This Court respectfully agrees to the view and taking into consideration all the aspects, allow the writ petition.

10.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.06.2013 passed by is quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is directed to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 as per her application moved on 08.02.2013with all consequential benefits. The said exercise may be conducted within a period of three months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without any further notice."

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents

and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

(4 of 4) [CW-7366/2013]

that the petitioner being married, is not entitled for compassionate

appointment.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

allowed; for the reasons, firstly, admittedly, at the time of

submitting the application for compassionate appointment the

petitioner was unmarried; secondly, the objection raised by the

respondents regarding marriage of the petitioner is not

sustainable as the petitioner solemnized marriage after one year