Ashwani Kumar Chauhan, S/O Late ... vs The District And Sessions Judge ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5229 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:24732-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 717/2023

Ashwani Kumar Chauhan, S/o Late Shri Ashok Singh Chouhan,
Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 350, Jawahar Colony,
Mahukala, Gangapurcity, Sawaimadhopur.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       The District And Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur.
2.       The Additional District And Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity,
         District Sawaimadhopur
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)             :     Ms. Anita Aggarwal with
                                   Mr. Laxmikant
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

22/09/2023 (ORAL):

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 288/2023:

1. Prayer made in the application for condonation of delay of 81

days in filing of the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly

supported by an affidavit, we accept the explanation as has been

submitted in the said application. Delay of 81 days in filing of the

appeal stands condoned.

3. Application stands allowed.

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 717/2023:-

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.02.2023

passed by learned Single Judge, whereby challenge to the orders

[2023:RJ-JP:24732-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-717/2023]

dated 22.2.2003, 07.05.2003 and 30.09.2004 passed by the

District and Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, declining the

application of the appellant for appointment on compassionate

grounds has been dismissed on the ground that the statutory rules

did not permit the said benefit as a matter of right as also on the

aspect that the appellant had not attained majority within the

period permissible under Rule 10(3) of Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants

Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1996").

Another aspect which was taken into consideration was the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirvan Singh:(2019) 6 SCC 774

and Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila & Anr.:(2020) 2 SCC

729 wherein it has been held that the purpose and intent to grant

compassionate appointment is to bail out and tide over the family

relating to the financial crisis which is caused as a result of sudden

death of the sole breadwinner.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

application for appointment on compassionate ground was

immediately preferred after the death of the father of the

appellant who unfortunately died on 31/12/2002 while in service.

The appellant being minor at that stage, his application was

rejected on 22/02/2003. The aspect that the subsequent

application was filed after a period of two years has also been

highlighted, but the said benefit again was declined by passing the

order dated 07/05/2003 and thereafter on 30/09/2004. The

grounds being same that the appellant had not attained the age of

majority till then, she contends that the primary things as has

[2023:RJ-JP:24732-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-717/2023]

been pointed out in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court was

to tide the family out of the crisis because of the sudden death of

sole breadwinner of the family, which situation has not been

looked at by the respondents while passing the order of rejection.

She, on this basis, contends that impugned orders cannot be

sustained. That apart, learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance upon Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996, to contend

that in extreme circumstances, the government can pass orders to

relax the rules which power was not exercised but could have

been exercised in the case of appellant. Learned Single Judge has

also not looked into that aspect.

3. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and on going through the judgment passed by

learned Single Judge, we are unable to accept the said contention.

4. The discretion which has been provided for relaxation of the

rules to the Government under Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996

cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Nor any exceptional

situation has been pleaded or projected which would require such

a power to be exercised by the Government. Nothing has come

on record which would indicate that the pecuniary situation of the

family was of such a nature which would require power of

relaxation of rules to be exercised.

5. It is a settled proposition of law that compassionate

appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it intends

to enable the family to come out of the crisis which has been

caused because of sudden death of sole breadwinner.

6. Factum that the appellant had not attained the age of

majority at relevant time when the case of appellant was

[2023:RJ-JP:24732-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-717/2023]

considered and thereafter period of limitation to apply and grant

appointment, which is 2 years from the death of the deceased

employee, would act as an impediment for grant of statutory

benefits, under the Rules of 1996. The appellant being not eligible

for appointment to the post because of he being not a major, the

benefit has rightly been declined. The judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation

Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Indian Bank and Ors. (supra) cover

the case of the appellant against him.

7. In the light of the above, finding no merit in the present

appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are

also dismissed.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

Anil Sharma/Pooja/16

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)