Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bablu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42545) on 5 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:42545]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5089/2020
Bablu Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, Village
Hirna, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. At Present
Jagtambha Colony Mata Ka Than Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Home
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commandant, Fourth Battalion, Rac, Chainpura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vrinda Samdani for Ms. Vandana
Bhansali, A.G.C.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
05/12/2023
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by a suitable writ, order or
direction:
(a) that the respondents may be directed to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the suitable
post.
(b) Any other appropriate, writ order or direction, which this
Hon'ble court thinks fit may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioner.
(c) award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner."
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (2 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner's father- Narayan
Singh, who was working on the post of Constable, Fourth
Battalion, RAC, Sri Ganganagar, expired while in service on
30.04.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner on attaining the age of
majority filed an application for compassionate appointment on
count of death of his father, while in service. The respondents
sent the communication dated 12.01.1999 and asking the
petitioner to submit the requisite documents. The respondents
vide communication dated 24.08.1999 rejected the petitioner's
application on the ground of the limitation.
2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before
the respondents for fresh consideration of the petitioner's case for
grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents vide
communication dated 26.06.2015 again asked the petitioner to
submit fresh application alongwith requisite documents. The
respondents also directed the petitioner to appear for police
verification vide communication dated 27.07.2015.
2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated
21.11.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner on the
ground that there was no reason available for relaxing the period
for submission of the application seeking compassionate
appointment. The petitioner's mother sent a representation to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister on 08.05.2017 in that regard, and the
petitioner also sent a notice in the matter of compassionate
appointment to the authority concerned.
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (3 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier
point of time, the then State Government granted relaxation to
similarly situated candidates in regard to condition of submitting
the application for compassionate ground to the extent of three
months, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in
the present case is violative of the Constitution of India.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that there is an exception in
Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of
Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996,
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996'), which provides for
grant of relaxation in an exceptional case; in the present case, the
petitioner family facing the financial hardship on count of sudden
demise of the sole bread earner, thus warrants positive
consideration of the petitioner's application seeking compassionate
ground.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submits the amendment notification
dated 19.04.1999 on the subject matter was issued, which
provides that as per Sub-Rule 3 of the Rule 10 of the Rules of
1996 in case the husband or wife of the deceased does not want
compassionate appointment for himself/herself and out of
remaining dependants, the eldest child had not attained the age of
18 years, then an information to this effect shall be submitted to
the Head of the Office/Department within three months from the
date of death of a government servant, and thereafter, the period
of three months for submission of the application for
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (4 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
compassionate appointment shall commence from the date of
acquiring of 18 years of age by the eldest child of dependants.
4.1. It was further submitted that in the present case, the mother
(wife of the deceased) of the petitioner filed an application for
compassionate appointment in the year 1999 for her son
(petitioner) after a huge delay of 15 years from the death of the
petitioner's father, and therefore, the petitioner's application was
rightly rejected on 13.08.1999.
4.2. It was also submitted that the representation of the
petitioner's mother submitted in the year 2017 was sent to the
State Government for fresh consideration for the appointment in
question but the same was returned, because of huge and
inordinate delay of 31 years 2 months 13 days without any cogent
and justifiable reason, and therefore, the application for
compassionate appointment in question cannot be considered at
this stage.
4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Nisha Jaipal Vs Union of India (D.B.C.W.P. No.
18354/2022, decided on 01.08.2023), and Smt. Parwati Devi
Vs. Director, (G) & Nodal Officer (PG), Ministry of Mines,
Geology Survey of India (D.B.C.W.P. No. 12808/2021,
decided on 08.02.2022) passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court at Jaipur Bench.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (5 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
6. This Court observes that the petitioner's father- Narayan
Singh, while working on the post of Constable, expired on
30.04.1984, whereafter the petitioner after attaining the age of
majority filed an application for compassionate appointment
before the respondents and the respondents asked the petitioner
to submit requisite documents. The respondents vide
communication dated 24.08.1999 rejected the petitioner's
application on the ground of limitation. In the year 2015, the
petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for
fresh consideration, whereupon the respondents again asked the
petitioner to submit fresh application alongwith requisite
documents. The respondents also directed the petitioner to appear
for police verification. Thereafter, the respondents vide
communication dated 21.11.2016 rejected the application of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
7. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Parwati Devi
(Supra), as hereunder:-
From a bare perusal of the pleadings and documents
available on record, it is clear that the deceased-employee
expired on 19.05.2003 and the claim of the petitioners for
compassionate appointment was rejected twice on
05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006. The petitioners kept mum for
ten years and after a lapse of ten years, they submitted similar
representation in the year 2016 to the concerned authorities
for revival of their claim for compassionate appointment, which
was again rejected by the respondents on 12.09.2016.
It is not in dispute that the earlier orders dated
05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006 have not been challenged by
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (6 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
the petitioners before the Tribunal, which have attained
finality.
Looking to the material available on the record,
and after applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgments referred in foregoing
paras, we are of the considered opinion that the
contentions put forward by the counsel for the
petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent
representations were made after a decade. Thus, this
Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners
for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17
years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by
the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed.
8. This Court further observes that the above-quoted judgment
was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench after considering the
various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue
in question alongwith the settled proposition of law on the subject
matter.
9. This Court also observes that the father of the petitioner
expired in the year 1984 and thereafter the application for
compassionate appointment was submitted in the year 1999 after
an inordinate delay of 15 years. This Court further observes that
the petitioner filed a representation, followed by another
application in the year 2015-16, and therefore, it is clear that the
neither the petitioner nor his mother submitted any application for
compassionate appointment within the time limit so prescribed,
but such an application was submitted after an inordinate and
unexplained delay.
[2023:RJ-JD:42545] (7 of 7) [CW-5089/2020]
10. This Court in the present factual matrix, though has
sympathy for the petitioner and his family under bereavement,
but in view of the law settled on the subject matter, the relief
prayed for by the petitioner herein cannot be granted at this
belated stage.
11. This Court also observes that the petitioner and his family,
after the death of the sole breadwinner i.e. his father, were
entitled for the Compassionate Appointment as per the Rules of
1996, but within the prescribed time-frame, whereas in the
present case, the necessary application was filed after a huge,
inordinate and unexplained delay, and therefore, the appointment
in question is not permissible under the law.
12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the
afore-quoted precedent law as well as looking into the factual
matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so
as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.
13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
270-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
