Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sourabh Aseri vs State Government And Ors. ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/016890]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11810/2016
Sourabh Aseri S/o Late Shree Satyanarayan Asawat, Aged about
24 years, R/o 2B-27 Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Government through District Collector (Land Record)
District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Additional District Collector (Land Record), District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar.
4. Tehsildar (Land Record) Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Sharma
Mr. Saurabh Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23/05/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged rejection of his candidature for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996').
2. The brief facts apropos the present case are that the
petitioner's father Satyanarayan Asawat was a Government
employee, who passed away on 25.10.2015. At the time of death
of the deceased employee the petitioner's unmarried sister
[2023/RJJD/016890] (2 of 5) [CW-11810/2016]
(Hemlata) was employed in government service who later got
married on 12.12.2015.
3. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under
the Rules of 1996 by way of application dated 28.12.2015, which
was followed by a representation dated 02.06.2016 along with his
sister's affidavit of even date stating that she got married on
12.12.2015 and that after her marriage no one in the family is in
government services.
4. The respondents rejected the petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment by way of order dated 06.09.2016
indicating that as the petitioner's sister was a Government servant
on the date of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner is not
entitled for appointment under the Rules of 1996.
5. Mr. Saurabh Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that when the petitioner moved the application for
appointment (on 28.12.2015), Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 already
stood amended by notification dated 08.04.2015 and the
expression 'at the time of death of the Government servant' was
substituted by the expression 'at the time of death of the
Government servant or at the time of appointment of the
dependent.' He therefore, argued that as per the amended
provision of Rule 5, the petitioner was entitled for compassionate
appointment and hence, rejection of petitioner's application is
illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
dated 02.02.2021 passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case
of Tarun Kumar Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 16912/2017).
[2023/RJJD/016890] (3 of 5) [CW-11810/2016]
7. Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the
respondents on the other hand submitted that the facts as
pleaded by the petitioner before this Court have not been
specifically stated in the writ petition. He was, however, not in a
position to dispute the position that above facts have been stated
by the petitioner's sister in her affidavit dated 02.06.2016, which
is part of the record.
8. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents was
otherwise not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual
position.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
10. It is to be noted that on the date of death of petitioner's
father i.e. on 25.10.2015, Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 stood
amended. The relevant part of amended Rule 5 reads as under:
"5. Appointment Subject To Certain
Conditions.- (1) When a Government servant
dies while in service one of his/her dependents
may be considered for appointment in
Government service subject to the condition that
employment under these rules shall not be
admissible in cases where the spouse or at least
one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted
son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased
Government servant is already employed on
regular basis under the central / any State
Government or Statutory Board,
Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled
wholly or partially by the Central/ any State
Government at the time of death of the
Government servant or at the time of the
appointment of the dependent.
[2023/RJJD/016890] (4 of 5) [CW-11810/2016]
11. The petitioner's right to appointment accrued on the date of
his father's death i.e. on 25.10.2015 and Rule 5 was already
amended (w.e.f. 08.04.2015). The Respondents were therefore
required to consider petitioner's case for appointment as per the
amended provision of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, which extends
benefit to cases when there is no other family member employed
by the government at the time of appointment of the dependent.
12. The petitioner had admittedly applied for the appointment
under the Rules of 1996 on 28.12.2015 well within two months of
the death of Government employee and it is also not in dispute
that by such time the petitioner's sister had already got married
on 12.12.2015. This being the position, even on the date of
application, the petitioner's sister (Hemlata) cannot be said to be
a member of the family employed in Government service as she
had married. After marriage, petitioner's sister being daughter of
the deceased Government servant cannot be treated to be a
dependent, as per a cojoint reading of definition of term
'dependent' given under sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (c) of
Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996.
13. The respondents have erred in rejecting the petitioner's
application on the basis of unamended rules. The fact that on the
date of death of Government employee, petitioner's sister was
serving in government department, has become redundant after
the amendment, particularly when at the time of decision of
petitioner's application she got married.
14. In view of the aforesaid and following the judgment in the
case of Tarun Kumar Jain (supra), the writ petition is allowed.
[2023/RJJD/016890] (5 of 5) [CW-11810/2016]
15. The impugned order dated 06.09.2016 is hereby quashed.
16. The respondents are directed to consider petitioner's
application afresh and offer him appointment in accordance with
law, if he is otherwise eligible and suitable.
17. Needful be done within a period of three months from today.
18. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
543-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
