Rajasthan High Court
Vinod Kanwar D/O Mool Singh W/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:44411) on 22 October, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:44411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16441/2022
Lal Singh S/o Guman Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village
Mollyasi, Tehsil Dhodh District Sikar (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Additional Director, State Insurance And Provident Fund
Department, State Of Rajasthan, Beema Bhavan,
Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj)
3. District Education Officer (Primary Education), Jodhpur
(Raj.)
4. Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sewala, Block
Dhawa, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. State Bank Of India, Through Manager, Village Kakra,
Tehsil Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Vinod Kanwar D/o Mool Singh W/o Sandeep Singh, R/o
Village Kurjadi, Post Udsar, Tehsil Nokha, Dist. Bikaner
(Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17263/2023
Vinod Kanwar D/o Mool Singh W/o Late Shri Sandeep Singh, R/o
Vpo Molyasi Tehsil Dhodh, District Sikar Currently Residing At
Village Kurjadi, Post Udsar, Tehsil Nokha, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director, State Insurance And Provident Fund
Department, State Of Rajasthan, Beema Bhavan,
Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
[2024:RJ-JP:44411] (2 of 6) [CW-16441/2022]
4. District Education Officer, Headquarters Primary
Education, Goshala Road, Ajit Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Sewala,
Block Dhava, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) in : Mr. Tanmay Dhand
SB CWP
For Petitioner(s) in : Mr. Pranav Pareek for
SB CWP Mr. Anoop Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan, AGC
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikram Jain
No.5 in SB CWP No.
16441/2022
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
22/10/2024
Since, the issue involved in both the writ petitions is
common, i.e., entitlement of Smt. Vinod Kanwar-wife of late
Sandeep Singh (deceased government employee) for
compassionate appointment, these have been heard together and
are being decided vide this common order.
Although, in the SB Civil Writ Petition No.16441/2022 filed by
Lal Singh-father of the deceased government employee, there are
prayers other than related to the compassionate appointment;
but, learned counsel for the petitioner confines this writ petition to
the extent of disentitlement of the respondent No.6-wife of the
deceased government employee for compassionate appointment.
The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Sandeep Singh died
on 06.08.2022 while working as Teacher Grade-III (Level II) in a
Government school. Alleging that his son was abetted to commit
[2024:RJ-JP:44411] (3 of 6) [CW-16441/2022]
suicide by his wife and her family members, the petitioner-father
of the deceased government employee lodged an FIR
No.0126/2022 at Police Station Jhanwar, Jodhpur City West.
Stating that on account of pendency of criminal investigation in
the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No.6 is not entitled for
compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband,
this writ petition is filed.
The SB Civil Writ Petition No.17263/2023 has been filed by
wife of the deceased government employee praying therein for a
direction to the respondents to extend her compassionate
appointment.
Indisputably, the investigating agency has, after
investigation, submitted the Negative Final Report No.1 dated
31.12.2022 in the FIR No.0126/2022 finding the allegations to be
false and based upon mere suspicion and a protest petition filed
thereagainst by father of the deceased government employee is
pending consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-father of the deceased
government employee, would submit that in view of pendency of
the aforesaid protest petition filed by him, the respondent No.6 is
not entitled for compassionate appointment. He, therefore, prays
that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed
not to extend her appointment on compassionate basis till she is
fully exonerated in the criminal proceeding.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 would
submit that since, the investigating agency has already submitted
the negative final report finding the allegations levelled in the FIR
lodged by the father of the deceased government employee to be
[2024:RJ-JP:44411] (4 of 6) [CW-16441/2022]
false, mere pendency of protest petition on his behest does not
come in way of her compassionate appointment. He submits that
a coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Smt.
Narbada versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.:SB Civil Writ
Petition No.14061/2019 involving identical controversy, vide
order dated 12.12.2022, held that mere pendency of a protest
petition does not come in way of compassionate appointment. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by father of the
deceased government employee be dismissed and the writ petition
filed by her be allowed.
Learned State Counsel submits that since, wife of the
deceased government employee did not submit the affidavit(s) in
the prescribed proforma as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for brevity "the Rules of
1996"), she was not extended compassionate appointment.
Heard. Considered.
This Court finds no substance in the writ petition filed by
father of the deceased government employee. Indisputably,
finding the allegations levelled by him against the respondent No.6
and her family members in the FIR No.0126/2022 to be false and
based upon mere suspicion, negative final report has been filed by
the investigating agency way back on 31.12.2022 and mere
pendency of a protest petition at the behest of the complainant
does not operate as an impediment for grant of compassionate
appointment as held by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Narbada (supra), which involves almost identical
facts. In that case, the compassionate appointment to the
[2024:RJ-JP:44411] (5 of 6) [CW-16441/2022]
respondent No.4 was assailed by his grand-mother on account
that an FIR was lodged concerning death of her son-the deceased
government employee wherein, serious allegations were levelled
against family members including the respondent No.4, the son of
the deceased government employee. The police after investigating
did not find the allegations substantiated and submitted a
negative final report. Negating the challenge to the compassionate
appointment extended to the respondent No.4 on account of death
of his father, it was held by the coordinate Bench that pendency of
protest petition cannot be considered as an impediment for grant
of appointment to the respondent No.4 being the legal heir of the
deceased government employee.
Further, as is apparent from the order dated 16.03.2023
passed by the official respondents, wife of the deceased
government employee has not been found to be entitled for
compassionate appointment not on account of pendency of the
protest petition; but, for not furnishing the affidavit(s) in terms of
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.
Insofar as the objection raised by the official respondents is
concerned, learned counsel for the wife of the deceased
government employee submits that the official respondents be
directed to extend her compassionate appointment in case, she
files the requisite affidavit(s) in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of
1996.
Learned State Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid
prayer.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, while, the SB Civil Writ
Petition No.16441/2022 preferred by the father of the deceased
[2024:RJ-JP:44411] (6 of 6) [CW-16441/2022]
government employee is dismissed, the SB Civil Writ Petition
No.17263/2023 filed by wife of the deceased government
employee is disposed of in following term(s):-
The official respondents would extend her
appointment on compassionate basis within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of submission of
affidavit(s) by her in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of
1996.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/121-122
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
