Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sharda vs State And Ors on 22 September, 2022
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15022/2017.
Smt. Sharda widow of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Vaishnav, R/o
Partaniyon Ki Gali, Nagour, at present-Deep Colony, Mundava
Chouraha, District Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education Department,
Bikaner Division, Bikaner
4. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Nagour.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kshama Purohit.
Mr. Naman Bhansali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarvan Kumr, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/09/2022
Brief facts of the case are that the mother-in-law of the
petitioner while working as a Class-IV employee in the
respondent-department, passed away on 22.03.2009.
The petitioner, 'widowed daughter-in-law' of the deceased
employee filed an application to the respondent-department
seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2012 as per the
provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment to the
Dependents of the Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996').
(2 of 3) [CW-15022/2017]
The respondent-department vide order dated 19.03.2014,
rejected the application seeking compassionate appointment on
the ground that 'widowed daughter-in-law' is not covered under
the definition of 'Dependent' provided in the Rules of 1996.
The challenge to the order dated 19.03.2014 has been laid in
the present writ petition almost after three years.
In the case of Ganpat Parihar v Food Corporation of
India and Ors.: D.B. S.A.W. 573/2022, Division Bench of this
Court observed that:
"We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by
Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The
applications for compassionate appointment filed by
the appellant in the year 2000/2003 was rejected on
29.09.2011. Since, the appellant did not challenge
the order dated 29.09.2011 for six years, it can be
presumed that the crisis faced by the family must
have been averted with the passage of time."
In the case of Naveen Kumar Doganwa v The Chief
Managing Director and Ors.: D.B. S.A.W. 284/2021, Division
Bench of this Court held as under:
"We are in agreement with the reasons given by
Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The
application for compassionate appointment was filed
by the appellant in the year 2012 and subsequently,
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 availing
appointment for all these years. At this stage, when
the crisis that had occurred on account of sudden
death of the appellant's father is over, appellant's
request for compassionate appointment as per
educational qualification (B.Tech./B.E.) or by
reviving the order dated 06.02.2014 cannot be
granted. As the whole object of granting
compassionate appointment is to enable the family
to tide over the sudden crisis which arise due to the
death of the sole bread winner. After the passage of
a long period of time, the compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as the crisis is over."
(3 of 3) [CW-15022/2017]
The order of rejection dated 19.03.2014 does not call for any
interference as 'widowed daughter-in-law' is not covered under
the definition of 'Dependent' as provided under Rule 2(C) of the
Rules of 1996. Also, the claim for compassionate appointment was
made after the expiry of limit prescribed under the Rules of 1996.
It is a settled proposition of law, which has been reiterated in
the aforementioned judgments that compassionate appointment is
extended to meet the sudden financial crisis ensued upon the
family due to death of the sole bread winner. After passage of
time, the crisis had been averted and compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed. In the present case, the application claiming
compassionate appointment was filed after three years from the
date of demise of government servant and the challenge to the
order rejecting the application has been laid before this Court after
another 3 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has survived for all
these years, by this time, the crisis had befallen and hence, the
petitioner's request for compassionate appointment cannot be
acceded to.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition
is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
26-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
