Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Nakul vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35140) on 7 August, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:35140]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20556/2024

Nakul S/o Late Hari Kishan, Aged About 23 Years, Opposite
Aravali Forest Department, In Front Of Stadium, Nagaur (Raj.)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of   Rajasthan,          Through         Secretary,     Education
         Department,          Government            Of     Rajasthan,      Secretariat,
         Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Bikaner.
3.       Director,        Elementary            Education,            Government     Of
         Rajasthan, Bikaner
4.       District     Education         Officer       (Headquarter),        Secondary
         Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Nagaur (Raj.)
5.       District     Education         Officer      (Headquarter),        Elementary
         Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Nagaur (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Sandeep Soni
                                     Ms. Nikita Marothi



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

07/08/2025

1. An Interlocutory Application (No.01/25) has been filed by the

petitioner for preponement of the date fixed in the matter.

2. For the reasons submitted in the application, the same is

allowed.

3. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved of the order dated

01.03.2024 (Annex.9) passed by Joint Administration Secretary,

[2025:RJ-JD:35140] (2 of 7) [CW-20556/2024]

Education (Group-2) whereby the application (Annex.2) submitted

by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account

of death of his unmarried sister has been rejected. The prayer

sought by the petitioner in the instant petition is reproduced as

under:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may kindly be accepted and allowed, and impugned order dated 01/03/2024 (Annexure-9) passed by Joint Administration Secretary, Education (Group-2), Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner in respondent department on the post of La Assistant on compassionate ground with effect from the date of hi application for the same and he may be paid arrear alongwit interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of his appointment till the date o realization. Any other order which is in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed in the interest of justice. Cost of the writ petition may kindly also be allowed to the petitioner."

4. Brief facts of the case are that Ms. Mona, the unmarried

sister of the petitioner, was appointed in the Revenue Department,

Government of Rajasthan, on 11.10.2017. She passed away on

05.04.2021 during her service. Following her death, the petitioner

applied for compassionate appointment as a Lower Division Clerk

(L.D.C.) under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant

Rules, 1996, submitting all requisite documents to respondent

No.5 however, on 17.08.2022, realizing eligibility for the post of

Laboratory Assistant, the petitioner submitted a fresh application,

which was forwarded by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 3 on

19.09.2022. On 03.11.2023, the Joint Administrative Secretary,

Education (Group-2), returned the petitioner's application, citing a

Supreme Court judgment dated 18.11.2021 (Civil Appeal No.

6903/2021) stating that compassionate appointment rules

[2025:RJ-JD:35140] (3 of 7) [CW-20556/2024]

applicable at the time of the deceased's death (05.04.2021)

should apply, and the Notification dated 28.10.2021 (Annex.8)

cannot be applied retrospectivley. On 01.03.2024, the Joint

Administrative Secretary ordered the removal of the petitioner's

case from pending compassionate appointment cases, following

the Department of Personnel's denial (Annexure-9). On

15.11.2024, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents,

requesting appointment as a Laboratory Assistant on

compassionate grounds, asserting eligibility under the amended

Rule 2(c) and the Notification dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure-12)

but to no avail. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide

Notification dated 28.10.2021 issued by Joint Secretary to the

Government of Rajasthan (Annex.10) earlier Rule 2(c) of

Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of

Deceased Government servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter the Rules

of 1996) has been substituted and under the newly introduced

provision i.e., Rule 2(c)(v) unmarried brother of the unmarried

deceased Government Servant is also considered as a dependent.

He, thus relying on Rule 2(c)(v) of the Rules of 1996, further

submits that the petitioner, being unmarried brother of the

unmarried deceased Government Servant, is also eligible to claim

compassionate appointment.

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the

judgment passed by three judges bench of this court in Priyanka

Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[Civil Reference

No.01/2022, Decided on 13.09.2022] submits that in the

aforesaid judgment, while striking out the word 'unmarried' from

[2025:RJ-JD:35140] (4 of 7) [CW-20556/2024]

the definition of the term 'dependent' qua a daughter, the court

directed that the effect of striking out of the word would apply to

cases either pending before the competent authority and/or to the

cases where litigation is pending on the date of the passing of that

judgment. He further submits that though the aforesaid judgment

dealt with the case of a married daughter, however, a co-ordinate

bench of this court in case of Ankit Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.[S.B.CWP. No.10903/2016, Decided on 17.03.2023]

has decided a similar controversy while dealing with a similar

controversy qua unmarried brother, has applied the ratio of

Priyanka Shrimali (supra) and held that benefit of amended

Rule 2(c)(v) of the Rules of 1996 would be available to the cases

where litigation was pending on the date of passing of the order in

Priyanka Shrimali (supra). He thus, submits that as the case of

petitioner was pending on the date of passing of the order in

Priyanka Shrimali (supra), the same would also be governed by

the substituted Rule 2 (c)(v) of the Rules of 1996 as introduced

vide Notification dated 28.10.2021 (Annex.10).

6. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to refute that

a similar controversy qua 'unmarried brother' has already put to

rest by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Ankit Gaur (supra).

7. This court finds that the larger bench of this court in

Priyanka Shrimali (supra) while striking out the word

'unmarried' in the definition of the term 'dependent' has directed

that the effect of the striking out the same would apply to cases

which are pending before the competent authority or/and to cases

where litigation is pending on the dated of passing of that order.

The relevant part of aforesaid decision is reproduced as under:

[2025:RJ-JD:35140] (5 of 7) [CW-20556/2024]

"As a consequence, it is directed that on account of striking down of the word 'unmarried' from the definition - (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein compassionate appointment has already been granted under the provisions as they stood before this order; (ii) the same by itself would not provide a cause of action to any applicant and would apply to cases which are either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases where litigation is pending on the date of this order only; (iii) the provisions and other requirements of the definition regarding the applicant being wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death would be scrupulously applied;

(iv) all the parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of compassionate appointment, shall also be scrupulously followed and that (v) all other provisions of the Rules except the inclusion of the 'married daughter' in the definition of 'dependent', shall have full application."

8. Further, the co-ordinate bench of this court in Ankit Gaur

(supra) was dealing with a similar controversy wherein unmarried

brother sought compassionate appointment on account of death of

his unmarried brother who was a Government Servant. The co-

ordinate bench dealt with the question whether amended provision

of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 would apply qua unmarried

brother, and applying the ratio of Priyanka Shrimali (supra)

directed authorities to consider his case and grant him

compassionate appointment, if found legally entitled. The relevant

part of the decision in Ankit Gaur (supra) is reproduced as

under:

"A bare perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that the effect of striking down of the word was directed to be applied to cases which were either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases where litigation was pending on the date of the order. In the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was preferred by the petitioner soon after death of the employee in the year

[2025:RJ-JD:35140] (6 of 7) [CW-20556/2024]

2016 and soon after rejection of the application, the present writ petition was preferred before this Court which remained pending till date. Therefore also, the matter requires consideration by the respondent- authorities. In view of above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents-authorities are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant him compassionate appointment, if otherwise found legally entitled."

9. In the present case the unmarried sister of the petitioner

met her demise on 05.04.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner,

being unmarried brother of the deceased unmarried Government

Servant (Petitioner's Sister) duly filed application (Annex.2) within

time seeking compassionate appointment and the same,

admittedly, was pending consideration before the competent

authority on the date of passing of order in Priyanka Shrimali

(supra) i.e., 13.09.2022. Thus, taking into consideration the

direction issued by the larger bench of this court in Priyanka

Shrimali (supra) that the effect of the striking out the word

'unmarried' would apply to cases which are pending before the

competent authority or/and to cases where litigation is pending on