[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Toshendra Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:54356]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18348/2018

Toshendra Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
About 22 Years, (The Junior Engineer), Forest Department), By
Caste Rajput, R/o 1368, Sector-5 Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
                                                                               ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of   Rajasthan,         Through         Its      Secretary,        Forest
         Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Department Of
         Forest, Jaipur.
4.       Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest
         (Arajpatrit       Prashthapana),            Office        Of       Principal    Chief
         Conservator Of Forest, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5.       Chief Conservator Of Forest, Vaniki Vikas Yojana, Kota,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                            ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Ms. Abhilasha Bora
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. J.K. Mishra



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI


                                          Order


DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                         :     29/10/2025


DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED                                         :     29/10/2025


FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART                                            :     Full Order


DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                                   :    19/12/2025.

BY THE COURT:-

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (2 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition petitioner is seeking

direction to quash the order No.F3(65)2017/ dated 09.12.2017

passed by the respondents denying appointment on

compassionate ground.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is

the son of Late Shri Virendra Singh, who was serving as a Junior

Engineer in the Forest Department under the office of the Chief

Conservator of Forest, Forestry Development Project, Kota, and

died in harness in the year 2008, leaving the petitioner, then aged

about 7 years, destitute and dependent.

2.1. An application seeking compassionate appointment was

submitted on 08.03.2000 through the petitioner's grandfather, his

then guardian. The respondent authorities declined consideration

on the ground that the petitioner was a minor, stating that the

claim could be considered only upon his attaining majority. During

this period, the petitioner remained under the care of his

grandfather, who also expired on 28.03.2011, when the petitioner

was still a minor aged about 15 years.

2.2. After attaining majority and upon obtaining the requisite

documents in the year 2017, the petitioner submitted a fresh

application for compassionate appointment. The same was

rejected vide communication dated 09.12.2017, solely on the

ground of delay, despite the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation

explaining the reasons for the alleged delay, including lack of

guardianship, non-availability of documents, and ignorance of

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (3 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

procedural formalities. However, the said representation remained

undecided, and even after more than eight months, no action was

taken by the respondent authorities.

2.3. Aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection and continued inaction

of the respondents, the petitioner has been left with no efficacious

alternative remedy and has, therefore, approached this Hon'ble

Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of

compassionate appointment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and

violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it

deprives the petitioner of livelihood and dignity. The petitioner had

applied for compassionate appointment through his grandfather

immediately after the death of his father, but the claim was

deferred solely on the ground of minority. At the relevant time, the

petitioner was only seven years old and thereafter lost his

grandfather while still a minor, leaving him without guardianship

or knowledge of the pending proceedings. Upon obtaining relevant

documents in 2017, the petitioner promptly applied, and

therefore, the rejection on the ground of delay is wholly

misconceived.

3.1. It is further contended that the petitioner is the sole

dependent of the deceased employee, his sisters being married

and settled, and thus squarely covered under the Rajasthan

Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996. The Rules do not

prescribe any rigid limitation period, and being a beneficial

legislation, deserve liberal interpretation. The petitioner's financial

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (4 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

distress is evident from his inability to continue higher education

and the absence of any family support after the demise of his

grandparents. In view of these compelling circumstances and

principles of equity and natural justice, it is prayed that the the

petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was considered

strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and policy. The

application dated 08.03.2000 submitted by the petitioner's

grandfather was only a prospective request and did not confer any

vested right. The petitioner was expressly directed vide letter

dated 03.07.2000 to apply afresh after attaining majority.

4.1. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his application

only on 19.07.2017, resulting in an inordinate delay of 17 years, 2

months and 12 days from the date of death of the employee and 3

years, 4 months and 9 days even from the date of attaining

majority. Though the case was forwarded to the State Government

for relaxation, the same was declined by the competent authority.

The rejection was accordingly communicated vide letter dated

12.01.2018. Since compassionate appointment is an exception to

the normal rule of recruitment and must be strictly construed, the

petitioner, having failed to apply within the permissible time, is not

entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

5. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have

meticulously perused the material placed on record. Upon an

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (5 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

objective evaluation of the pleadings, documents and the legal

position governing compassionate appointment, this Court finds

that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is no longer

res integra and stands squarely governed by binding judicial

precedent.

6. It is noticed that this Court, in SBCWP No.7026/2024 (Amit

Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) , decided on 18.12.2024, has

examined and adjudicated a claim for compassionate appointment

arising out of a substantially similar factual matrix and involving

the same legal questions. The controversy in the present case is,

therefore, akin and covered by the said decision. The relevant part

of the judgment passed therein, which succinctly lays down the

governing principles and delineates the scope and object of

compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate

Appointment Rules, 1996, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:-

"5. As per the procedure prescribe under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 and the notification dated 19.04.1999, in case of death of a Government servant, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds has to be made within a period of three months from the date of death of the Government servant. Provided that where the spouse does not seek appointment for herself/himself and even the eldest of remaining dependents has not attained the age of 18 years (intimation to this effect to be given in writing within three months of the death of the Government servant), the above period of limitation shall run from the date of attaining the age

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (6 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

of 18 years by such eldest dependent. In the case at hand, the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.12.2001 and he attained the age of 18 years of age on 17.12.2019, thus, he had to submit the application for compassionate appointment by 17.03.2020 as the period prescribed is three months. However, the petitioner preferred the application on 25.08.2023 with the delay of more than 3 years and 5 months. In view of the aforesaid facts, the respondent department has committed no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.

6. Here, in the case at hand, the Government servant passed away on 03.02.2014. The wife of the Government servant submitted an application submitting that she wish to secure compassionate appointment for hER son (the present petitioner), who was a minor at that time. The petitioner completed the age of 18 years on 17.12.2019, however, he did not prefer the application for compassionate appointment till August 2023. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner's family was suffering a financial crisis because in that eventuality, he would have filed the application immediately upon completion of the age of 18 years. By now, almost 10 years have elapsed since the death of the government employee and thus, it cannot be assumed that petitioner is not able to maintain his mother and other family members. Thus, looking to this angle also, the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of compassionate appointment.

7. Turning to the ratio decidendi concerning the object of policies governing compassionate appointments, it is a well-established principle that the purpose of such appointments is to enable the family of

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (7 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

a deceased government employee--the erstwhile breadwinner, to overcome the ensuing financial exigency. The object of these rules is thus to alleviate the financial distress and mitigate the emergent circumstances faced by the family. It is axiomatic that a claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but rather a privilege subject to rigorous scrutiny of various factors, including the family's financial standing, their economic dependence on the deceased employee, and the occupations of other family members. Therefore, no individual can assert an inherent right to such appointment. This policy is designed to address the immediate needs of families left in indigent circumstances by the death of a government servant, requiring emergent means of subsistence. In matters of compassionate appointment, it must be ensured that the appointment serves as a substitute for the lost income of the sole breadwinner, thereby preventing penury. Taking guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tinku v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024), wherein it has been held that the aim of providing compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis owing to the demise of the bread earning family member. This underscores that these compassionate appointments are designed to address immediate financial needs and are not an entitlement. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (8 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

favour of the family of the deceased employee.

This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner.

15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. When seen in this conspectus, three years as has been laid down from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority as per the 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right.

16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with.

8. In view of the judgment referred to Supra and following the principal laid down therein and after anxious consideration of the reasons recorded herein above and the fact that the petitioner preferred the application seeking compassionate appointment with inordinate delay, this Court is of the firm view that present one is not a fit case for interference in the orders impugned dated 03.04.2024 & 13.04.2024 and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:47:49 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54356] (9 of 9) [CW-18348/2018]

9. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition having no force is hereby dismissed. The stay petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs."

In view of the binding nature of the said pronouncement and

in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance, this Court finds

no justification to take a different view, and the present writ

petition is consequently liable to be dismissed on the same

reasoning.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is dismissed. The stay

petition and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 139-Mamta/-