Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gaurav Vyas vs State And Ors on 16 September, 2022

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13598/2015

Gaurav Vyas S/o Shri Upendra Kumar Vyas, aged about 29 years, R/o VPO Tamasa, Saroda, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Raj.

3. Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, Raj.

4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara, District Banswara, Raj.

5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District Banswara, Raj.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Dr. Nupur Bhati
                                     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)              :     Ms. Bhawna Jangid



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                        Order

PRONOUNCED ON                              :::                       16 /09/2022
RESERVED ON                                :::                       14/09/2022

Briefly stated facts of the case are that Smt. Kalpana Vyas,

mother of the petitioner while holding the post of Teacher at

Government School, Vamasa, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District

Banswara passed away on 22.05.1992. The father of the petitioner

is a government servant. The petitioner being a minor, through his

father filed an application dated 21.06.1992 addressed to Block

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara seeking

(2 of 6) [CW-13598/2015]

appointment on compassionate ground when petitioner attains

majority as per the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of

Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975

(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1975'). The petitioner on

becoming major submitted an application dated 29.03.2007 along

with requisite documents to Director, Elementary Education,

Bikaner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. The

respondents rejected the application vide order dated 24.07.2014

on the ground that father of the petitioner was working as

government servant citing Rule 5 of Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant

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

Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2014, the petitioner has

preferred the instant writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner on death of his mother has rightful claim to be

appointed on compassionate grounds against the post of LDC. It

was further submitted that the object of rules for compassionate

appointment is to extend a helping hand to the kin of the

deceased. The petitioner possessing the required qualification is

capable of performing well against the post on which appointment

is sought and his application for compassionate should have been

accepted. The counsel urged that the Rules which apply in the

present case are that of 1975 and therefore, the application of

petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds ought

to have been accepted as the bar under Rule 5 of Rules of 1996

does not apply. In support of aforesaid contentions, counsel placed

reliance on case of Naveen Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan

(3 of 6) [CW-13598/2015]

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4285/2004) rendered by

Coordinate Bench of this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the application for compassionate appointment was preferred

by the petitioner after close to two decade had passed after the

demise of petitioner's mother. The counsel further submitted that

the appointment on compassioante grounds is not a source of

recruitment and is an exception carved out to help the family in

penurious financial condition. The counsel urged that the

application seeking compassionate appointment is to be

considered keeping the prevailing scheme in vogue and therefore,

the application was rightly rejected by the respondents

considering it in light of Rules of 1996, especially rule 5 of Rules of

1996.

Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material

available on record.

Factors to be taken into consideration for providing

employment to the dependents of a deceased employee on

compassionate ground are well settled. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal

Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138,

Honorable the Supreme Court observed that mere death of an

employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of

livelihood (compassionate appointment).It was further observed

that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse

of reasonable period, which must be specified in the rules. The

consideration for such employment is not a vested right, which

can be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be claimed or

offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

(4 of 6) [CW-13598/2015]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the principles

governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in

the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs.

V. Somyashree (2021) 12 SCC 20 as under:

"(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."

In the light of enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner's

mother while working on the post of Teacher at Government

School, Vamasa, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara, District Banswara

passed away on 22.05.1992. The petitioner (minor) through his

father vide communication dated 21.06.1992 intimated the Block

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwara that the

application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner be

considered as he attains majority. The petitioner after attaining

majority sought compassionate appointment through application

dated 29.02.2007 which was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2014

on the ground that rule 5 of prevailing Rules of 1996 impedes an

applicant whose family member is in service. Further, the

(5 of 6) [CW-13598/2015]

application was filed after so many years, so it can be safely

assumed that the financial crisis had befallen.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774

held as under:-

"The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same."

It is settled proposition of law that the norms/scheme/rules

prevailing on the date of application are to be considered while

examining an application for compassionate appointment. Also, no

person gains an unfettered right to be appointed on

compassionate grounds after demise of a family member.

It has been held in judgment of Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Naveen Kumar Doganwa v. The Chief Managing

Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur (D.B.

S.A.W. No.284/2021) that 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