Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11938 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2018

Smt. Durga Devi Mairda Wife Of Late Shri Basant, Resident Of Village And Post- Dhalkiya, Tehsil And District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Thorugh- The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer Administration, Public Health And Engineering Department Jaipur.

3. Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department Circle, Udaipur.

5. Executive Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department, District Rural Division, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia.

For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Anjana Jawa.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     Order
28/09/2022

Smt. Gawari Devi while working as a Class-IV employee in

the respondent-department, passed away on 07.02.2013. The

petitioner, widowed daughter in law of the deceased employee

filed an application seeking compassionate appointment in the

year 2013 as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment to the Dependents of Deceased Government Servant

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

respondent-department rejected the application vide orders dated

(2 of 5) [CW-624/2018]

20.03.2013 and 21.03.2014 on the count that 'widowed daughter

in law' does not fall within the definition of 'Dependent' provided

under the Rules of 1996.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of

the application seeking compassionate appointment deserves to

be declared bad in the eyes of law as 'widowed daughter in law'

should be considered as 'dependent' of a Government servant as

defined under Rule-2(c) of the Rules of 1996. Reliance was placed

on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. C.W. No.9177/2010).

Counsel further relied on judgments rendered by Chhattisgarh

High Court and Allahabad High Court in the cases of Smt. Duliya

Bai Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Petition

(S) No.5051 of 2014) and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs.

Smt. Urmila Devi (S.A.W. No.1026 of 2003) respectively.

Rule-2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced herein below for

the sake of ready reference:-

"2.(c) "Dependent" means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, [adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter] legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death."

In State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari &

Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545, Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that compassionate appointment should be made strictly

in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative

instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the

(3 of 5) [CW-624/2018]

financial condition of the family of the deceased. It was further

observed that such employment is an exception to the

constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. The object of compassionate appointment is

only to enable the family of the deceased to overcome sudden

financial crisis and not to confer any status upon it.

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 reported in (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 considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any

statutory provisions, a 'widowed daughter in law' cannot be

considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondent-

department had rightly rejected the petitioner's application for

(4 of 5) [CW-624/2018]

compassionate appointment in consonance with the definition of

"dependent" provided under the rules of 1996.

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 Donganwa 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

(5 of 5) [CW-624/2018]

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."

Admittedly, the deceased Government servant passed away

on 07.02.2013. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment was rejected in the year 2013 itself. The present writ

petition has been preferred after about four years from the date

of orders of rejections i.e. 20.03.2013 and 21.03.2014. The

petitioner's request for compassionate appointment in view of

aforesaid settled position of law cannot be entertained at a

belated stage.

In view of discussion made herein above, the present writ

petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)