Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Dhakoli Devi Widow Of Shri Vijay ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 September, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Ashutosh Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:40167-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.573/2024
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7701/2008
1. Smt. Dhakoli Devi Widow Of Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About
69 Years, Resident Of Peepalheda, Tehsil Hindaun City,
District Karauli.
2. Khem Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Peepalheda, Tehsil Hindaun City, District
Karauli.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Devasthan
Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Karauli.
3. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur.
4. Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Kota
Division, Kota.
5. Assistant/ Dy. Director, State Insurance And Provident
Fund Department, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment
21/09/2024
1. Heard on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
learned Single Judge committed illegality in holding that the order
[2024:RJ-JP:40167-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-573/2024]
of termination was just and proper and further that no case for
grant of compassionate appointment has been made out.
3. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to
appreciate that the order of termination passed on 23.07.1994
was not in accordance with law and merely because the
appellants, who are the widow and the son, did not approach the
Court within reasonable period, relief sought could not be denied.
It is also submitted that the object of compassionate appointment
is to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased,
therefore, even compassionate appointment ought to be made.
4. Both the contentions, in our view, are not tenable in law. The
employee died way back on 06.08.1994 after he was terminated
on 23.07.1994. The order of termination was never challenged. It
appears that the appellants were only claiming compassionate
appointment and other dues of the deceased after his death
without challenging the legality and validity of the order of
termination.
5. A claim for pension was made on erroneous assumption of
law that even after termination, terminated employee was entitled
to pensionary benefits. The writ petition was filed in the year
2006-07 seeking direction for payment of various dues without
challenging the order of termination. The learned Single Judge, in
the first round of the litigation, directed the authorities to decide
the claim.
6. Record shows that the medical bills, amount of insurance as
well as provident fund have been paid as stated in the return filed
by the respondents.
[2024:RJ-JP:40167-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-573/2024]
7. We cannot allow challenge to termination order which was
passed way back on 23.07.1994 through the writ petition was filed
after a decade. No question of compassionate appointment arises
for consideration because the employee did not die while in
service. It is trite law that no claim for compassionate
appointment is tenable by the dependents of an employee, who
was terminated from service.
8. No case is made out.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
A.Arora/Mohita/9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
