Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Devi Kanwar vs State And Ors (2023:Rj-Jd:37348) on 2 November, 2023
Bench: Avneesh Jhingan
[2023:RJ-JD:37348]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13287/2015
Smt. Devi Kanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State and Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.R. Choudhary
Mr. M.K. Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Order
02/11/2023
1. This writ petition was filed seeking quashing of order dated
15.05.2015, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of
a widowed daughter-in-law of deceased employee Kan Singh, who
died on 10.05.2013.
2. The brief facts are that the deceased was working as
Constable in State Excise Department. On his death, an
application was made by petitioner seeking compassionate
appointment. The husband of the petitioner-Prayag Singh had
died earlier to her father-in-law. The application was rejected
solely on the ground that widowed daughter-in-law does not find
mention in the definition of 'dependent' in Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules of 1996').
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decisions in
the cases of Smt. Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors:
[2023:RJ-JD:37348] (2 of 3) [CW-13287/2015]
reported in 2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 431 decided on 12.09.2011
and the judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.383/2023 (State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Sushila
Devi). The submission is that the widowed daughter-in-law was
held to be a dependent under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
judgment passed in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra) was not
considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that even if
the petitioner falls within the ambit of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of
1996, yet her eligibility is still to be determined for compassionate
appointment.
6. From perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the
case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected
solely on the ground that she was not covered in the definition of
the 'dependent'.
7. The Division Bench in the case of Sushila Devi (supra)
upheld the interpretation of Single Bench of Rule 2(c) of the Rules
of 1996 holding widowed daughter-in-law included in the definition
of dependent subject to the condition that the applicant was
dependent upon the deceased employee.
8. The relevant para of the judgment passed in the case of
Sushila Devi (supra) is collected below:
"22. We are of the view that the decision of this
Court in the case of Smt. Pinky Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors (supra) laid down the correct
legal position with regard to interpretation of Section
2(c) of the Rules of 19996 containing definition of
"dependent" so as to include not only a widowed
daughter but also widowed daughter-in-law. It is
however, with the caveat that in any case, the
[2023:RJ-JD:37348] (3 of 3) [CW-13287/2015]
applicant seeking compassionate appointment has
necessarily to be dependent on the deceased
employee."
8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.05.2015
(Annexure-8) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan to decide the issue of
compassionate appointment afresh after providing an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
10. Considering that the employee died in the year 2013 and
claim for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year
2015, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavor to decide the
matter expeditiously.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. All the pending
applications also stand disposed of.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
372-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
