Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Ganga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 954 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000767]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.766/2019
Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Ganga Ram, R/o Ghamoorwali, Tehsil
Padampur, District Ganga Nagar.
                                                                         ----Petitioner

                                         Versus

1.       State       of    Rajasthan,          through        Secretary,    Irrigation
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Secretary, Indira Gandhi Nahar Mandal, Government
         of Rajasthan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur
3.       Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyajana, Bikaner
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dileep Singh Jadaun, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shailesh Sharma, Addl. Govt.

Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

30/01/2023

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

seeking a direction to give him appointment on the compassionate

ground with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father

of the petitioner was working as Driver in the office of Assistant

Engineer, Sub Division-IV, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana and he

died while in service on 10.06.1990.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

father of the petitioner had adopted his son i.e. the present

petitioner, by executing an Adoption Deed in the year 1990 and at

[2023/RJJP/000767] (2 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only four years

old.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, on

attaining the age of majority, had immediately applied for

compassionate appointment, however, vide order dated

16.04.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the

respondents.

Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the

petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased government

employee and when he attained the age of majority i.e. of 18

years, he made an application seeking employment on the

compassionate ground and the petitioner had immediately moved

before the Authorities seeking appointment, as such, the

Authorities also vide order dated 09.12.2011, referred the matter

of the petitioner for grant of relaxation in age for compassionate

appointment and as such, counsel refers to an order dated

09.12.2011, filed as Annexure-2 with the writ petition.

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have

framed the necessary Compassionate Rules for giving the benefit

to the dependants of the deceased employee and if the petitioner

was claiming for his appointment, as adopted son of the deceased,

the Authorities ought to have exercised their discretion in a proper

manner and as such, the age relaxation power which is conferred

in the Rules, has not been exercised by the respondents

judiciously.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Rajasthan

Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased

Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1996')

[2023/RJJP/000767] (3 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

itself provides that the Appointing Authority in a given case can

make relaxation in respect of eligibility and since the petitioner

had attained the age of majority, as such, the Authorities should

not have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on that count.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the Circular

issued by the respondents dated 19.04.1999, the Authorities had

amended Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 and it has been provided

that the dependant who has attained the age of 18 years and if

information is given within three months on attaining the age of

superannuation, such person is required to be considered for

appointment.

Learned counsel, on the strength of said Circular,

submitted that in the facts of the case, due intimation was given

to the respondents on attaining the age of superannuation and as

such, the Authorities were required to deal with the case of the

petitioner as per the Circular issued by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed

reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

Anusree K.B. reported in [AIR 2022 SC 4766].

Per contra, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the

respondents-State Mr.Shailesh Sharma submitted that the present

writ petition may not be entertained by this Court on the ground

of delay itself as the order dated 16.04.2012, has been challenged

by the petitioner by filing the writ petition in January, 2019 and as

such, delay of seven years is sufficient alone to dismiss the

present writ petition.

[2023/RJJP/000767] (4 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel submitted that the

petitioner has even not challenged the order dated 16.04.2012, by

making any prayer in his writ petition and only a bald prayer has

been made without challenging the validity of order dated

16.04.2012.

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel submitted that admittedly

the petitioner was born on 19.08.1986 and he had made his

application in the month of September, 2009.

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel submitted that assuming

though not admitting the petitioner on attaining the age of

majority, was to submit an application for compassionate

appointment and as such, when the petitioner attained the age of

18 years in the year 2004, he applied for the first time for

compassionate appointment in the year 2009.

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel submitted that in the

instant case, the deceased employee had expired on 10.06.1990

and after lapse of 32 years, the petitioner and their family

members have survived. The purpose of compassionate

appointment is to give immediate relief to the family of the

deceased government employee and as such, the compassionate

appointment is not a vested or legal right, to be given to the

dependants for seeking employment.

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel further submitted that the

order dated 16.04.2012 has been passed by the Authorities after

considering all the relevant factors and accordingly, the Authorities

came to conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for any

relief for giving him compassionate appointment.

[2023/RJJP/000767] (5 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel has also placed reliance on

the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Parwati Devi &

Another Vs. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG), Ministry of

Mines, Geology Survey of India and Others reported in

[(2022)1 WLC 648].

Learned counsel on the strength of said judgment

submitted that if there is an inordinate delay in claiming

appointment, the same cannot be granted by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that admittedly in the facts of the

present case, father of the petitioner had expired on 10.06.1990

while he was in service and petitioner is said to be born on

19.08.1986.

This Court further finds that at the relevant time, the

erstwhile Appointment Rules of 1975 did not provide for giving

compassionate appointment to an adopted son, however, the

Rules of 1996 have been enacted by the State Government,

thereby even adopted son has been held entitled for

compassionate appointment.

This Court further finds that in the present case, the

petitioner had attained majority after completing 18 years in the

year 2004 and he had applied for the first time in September,

2009 for compassionate appointment.

This Court finds that plea taken by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner had immediately applied for

compassionate appointment, is not supported from the facts which

[2023/RJJP/000767] (6 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

have come on record and as such, this Court cannot accept the

submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner that being

an adopted son i.e. the petitioner, was required to be considered

for appointment, as the Authorities had processed his claim way-

back in the year 2011 and as such, an inordinate delay may not

defeat the claim of the petitioner, this Court finds that the inter

departmental communication however made at one point of time

in the year 2012, but the same would not result into creating any

right in favour of the petitioner to claim appointment on

compassionate ground, if his case is not covered as per the Rules

of 1996.

This Court finds substance in the submission of counsel

for the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is a belated

claim and as such, the present petition itself has been filed by the

petitioner belatedly i.e. after a lapse of seven years from the

receipt of order dated 16.04.2012.

This Court also finds that even the order dated

16.04.2012 has not been put to challenge and as such, this Court

cannot accept the claim which has been made by the petitioner

before this Court.

This Court also finds that the Apex Court in the case of

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. relied upon

by counsel for the petitioner and judgment passed by the Division

Bench in the case of Smt. Parwati Devi (supra) have reiterated

the position of law that an inordinate delay will not result into

considering the cases for compassionate appointment, as the

family of the deceased if survived for a long time, then in such an

[2023/RJJP/000767] (7 of 7) [CW-766/2019]

eventuality, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right by the dependants.

This Court finds the present writ petition lacks merit

and stands dismissed accordingly.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/121

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)