Rajasthan High Court
Bhudev Singh S/O Late Shri Rupan ... vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:19422-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 582/2023
Bhudev Singh S/o Late Shri Rupan Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Kheep Ka Pura, Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chairman, R.s.r.t.c. Headquarter, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
2. Dy. General Manager (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, R.s.r.t.c. Headquarter,
Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Dungarpur Depot, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
24/08/2023
ORAL
1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the
impugned order dated 17.05.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
16672/2015 wherein the petition praying for relief of
compassionate appointment was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge on account of Regulation 4(3) of the Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations,
2010 (for short "Regulations of 2010"), which imposes restriction
for grant of compassionate appointment in case the dependant
[2023:RJ-JP:19422-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-582/2023]
have received compensation, and on account of delay of over a
decade in filing the application for compassionate appointment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the
father of the appellant-petitioner died in harness on 20.01.2002,
at which point the appellant-petitioner was a minor. On attaining
the age of majority, the petitioner-appellant applied for
compassionate appointment before the respondents on
01.09.2014 and initially the Depot Level Committee of the
respondent approved the appointment of the appellant-petitioner
on the post of 'Conductor' on compassionate ground vide order
dated 08.09.2014. However, subsequently the Committee declined
to recommend the appointment of the appellant-petitioner in view
of Regulation 4(3) of Regulations of 2010.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has challenged
the impugned order, primarily, on the following grounds:
5.1. That the Regulations of 2010 have no application in the
instant case as the father of the appellant-petitioner expired in
2002, at which point the relevant rule of compassionate
appointment of State Government, namely The Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependant of Deceased
Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short "Rules of 1996") were
applicable and there was no disqualification in the Rules of 1996
on compassionate appointment in case the dependant gets
claim/compensation from Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short
"MACT").
5.2. That the learned Single Judge, on the issue of delay, relied
on judgments which were on different facts and circumstances and
[2023:RJ-JP:19422-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-582/2023]
had no application in the present case. It is contended that as the
appellant-petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father,
he could only apply for compassionate appointment after attaining
the age of majority. The appellant-petitioner attained the age of
majority on 14.07.2011 and applied for compassionate
appointment on 01.09.2014, and this delay of about three years
was condoned by the respondent vide order dated 08.09.2014. As
such, it is contended that, the reliance placed by learned Single
Judge on various Apex Court judgments is misplaced.
6. Heard and considered.
7. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated
17.05.2023 is reproduced as under:
"6. Perusal of the aforesaid Regulations indicates that
the dependants of the deceased are not entitled to
get compassionate appointment in case they have
received any compensation from the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. Here in the instant case, after death
of the deceased, the family members of the deceased
submitted an amended claim seeking compensation
and the claim was allowed by the Tribunal vide award
dated 01.08.2003 and the dependants of the
deceased were granted compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-, hence the respondents have not
committed any error in rejecting the application filed
by the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the father of
the petitioner died on 20.01.2002 and the application
for compassionate appointment was submitted on
01.04.2014, after a delay of more than a decade. It is
well settled proposition of law that the compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right
7. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right as the compassionate
appointment is made to enable the family to tide over
the crisis which is caused as a result of death of an
employee while in harness. The essence of the claim
lies in the immediacy of the need. This view has been
[2023:RJ-JP:19422-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-582/2023]
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors. Vs.
Nirval Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC 774 and
Indian Bank & Ors Vs. Promila & Anr. reported in
2020(2) SCC 729 and it has also been held that
though the Court has sympathy with the family
members of the deceased, who face the death of the
deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be the basis for
granting remedy to such family members and it is
not for the Courts to substitute a scheme, to add or
subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial
review."
8. It is noted that the application for compassionate
appointment was made in the year 2014 when the Rules of 1996
were no longer in force. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant-petitioner that the case of the appellant-petitioner ought
to be examined under the Rules of 1996 is entirely untenable.
9. It is an admitted and undisputed position that dependants of
the deceased government servant, i.e. the father of the appellant-
petitioner, were granted compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs only). Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly
observed that the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to get benefit
of compassionate appointment, which in any case cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, once the dependants of the deceased
government servant have received compensation from MACT, in
view of Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations of 2010. The validity of
Regulation 4(3) of the Regulations of 2010 has been upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (Neutral Citation:
2019/INSC/1130) reported in AIR 2019 SC 5208.
[2023:RJ-JP:19422-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-582/2023]
10. The learned Single Judge was also cognizant of the settled
position of law relating to compassionate appointment after an
inordinate delay and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court have also been quoted in the impugned order. Since the
order of the learned Single Judge is based on position of law as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no question of
interfering with the impugned order.
11. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ
ANIL SHARMA /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
