Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sagar Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29473) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29473]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 725/2025
Sagar Kumar S/o Late Shri Hosiyar Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Ward No. 29, Nohar, Near Idbi Bank, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
Zone Bikaner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. Mohan Singh
Shekhawat, Mr. Kunal Singh Rathore
Mr. Abhinav Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
REPORTABLE : Order
08/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that the
petitioner's father was serving in the Indian Armed Forces as
Hawaldar and attained martyrdom during Operation Pawan.
Pursuant to a notification issued by the respondent-State inviting
applications for compassionate appointments to the families of
martyrs of anti-terrorism operations, the petitioner applied for
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (2 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
such appointment. After due verification of the petitioner's
qualifications and family details, he was appointed on
compassionate grounds to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC)
and was posted in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD,
Division Nohar, District Hanumangarh. He joined the post on
25.02.2010 and after satisfactorily completing two years of his
services, he was confirmed on the said post on 02.03.2012. The
petitioner duly submitted all family details including information of
his wife and three children for the purpose of his service records
and State Insurance purposes. In the year 2019, a complaint was
made to the respondent department raising allegations regarding
the petitioner having three children at the time of appointment.
After receiving the complaint, the respondent issued
communications dated 09.07.2020 and 13.04.2022. The petitioner
replied to these communications by filing detailed replies clearly
stating therein that there was no concealment on the part of the
petitioner as the entire family details were duly furnished by him
at the time of his appointment. Dissatisfied with the replies filed
by the petitioner, he was issued a charge-sheet on 13.05.2024. To
this charge-sheet, the petitioner filed a detailed reply on
24.05.2024, clarifying that at the time of his appointment, he had
disclosed his marital status, and the details of his children were
also furnished to the respondent Department in the year 2012.
However, dissatisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, his
services were terminated vide order dated 26.12.2024. Hence, the
present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was granted appointment as a son of Martyrs on the application
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (3 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
preferred by him in accordance with the applicable Rules seeking
compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submits that the
entire factual details were submitted to the respondent
Department and the respondent Department, after due
consideration of the same, has issued the appointment order in
favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the
appointment was offered to the petitioner after the due
verification of the entire documents submitted by him along with
the application. He submits that even on a bare perusal of the
charge framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry
shows that the petitioner has not been charged for suppressing
any information while seeking compassionate appointment in the
respondent department. Learned counsel submits that even in the
enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that
the entire details were submitted by the petitioner and no fact was
suppressed by him while seeking compassionate appointment. He
submits that the Enquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that
the Chief Engineer of the respondent Department has imposed all
the conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the petitioner
for getting the employment/appointment in the respondent
Department and in compliance of the same, the petitioner has
complied with those conditions before being appointed in the
respondent Department. Learned counsel further submits that
after having served the department for almost fifteen years, the
services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he
was not eligible at the time of appointment. He submits that the
petitioner's services are unblemished and he has served the
respondent Department with utmost zeal, dedication and honesty.
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (4 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the
order 26.12.2024 may be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed in the
respondent department dehors the Rules. Learned counsel
submits that even as per the Rules of Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant
Rules, 1996, the dependent is required to be eligible for
appointment to the post and since the petitioner in the first
instance was not holding the requisite eligibility condition for
appointment, therefore, the appointment made in favour of the
petitioner is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that
as per the recruitment Rules and the amendment made therein
from time to time, it was the condition precedent that a person
who is having more than two children will not be eligible for
appointment in the State Government and, therefore, even as per
the Rules of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service
Rules, 1999, the petitioner is disqualified for appointment on
account of having more than two children and, therefore, the
appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the respondent
Department could not have been made. In support of her
submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a
judgment of Division Bench reported in 2020 SCC Online Raj
1179, Ramdev vs. State of Rajasthan through Secretary
&Ors. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be
dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (5 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was serving in
the Indian Armed Forces and attained martyrdom during
Operation Pawan, a military operation of significant national
importance. Pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government
inviting applications for compassionate appointments to the
dependents of such martyrs, the petitioner applied and was
appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk after proper
verification of his educational qualifications and family
background. He joined services on 25.02.2010 and was thereafter
confirmed on 02.03.2012 upon satisfactory completion of two
years of service. The core question in the present writ petition is
whether, in the peculiar facts of this case, the action of the
respondents for terminating the petitioner's services--after more
than a decade of continuous service--based on a delayed
complaint alleging eligibility issues, can be sustained in law or
not?
It is trite law that compassionate appointment, though is not
a vested right, but is a policy-driven exception to the regular
recruitment process. Its primary object is to offer immediate relief
and socio-economic support to families, on account of the
untimely death of the sole earning member while in government
service. The purpose is not to offer long-term employment, but to
prevent the family from slipping into financial hardship. This
welfare-driven intention must guide the interpretation and
implementation of such schemes.
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (6 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] has clearly held that the
object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the immediate crisis, and that
authorities must deal with such matters not mechanically, but with
sensitivity and compassion.
2. As a rule, appointments in the public services
should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. No other mode
of appointment or any other consideration is
permissible. Neither the Governments nor the
public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by
the rules for the post. However, to this general rule
which is to be followed strictly in every case, there
are some exceptions carved out in the interests of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would
not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is
made in the rules to provide gainful employment to
one of the dependants of the deceased who may
be eligible for such employment... The whole object
of granting compassionate employment is thus to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give a member of such family a
post much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family to
such source of livelihood. The Government or the
public authority concerned has to examine the
financial condition of the family of the deceased,
and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to
the eligible member of the family .The posts in
Class-Ill and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual
and manual categories and hence they alone can
be offered on compassionate grounds, the object
being to relieve the family, of the financial
destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
The provision of employment in such lowest posts
by making an exception to the rule is justifiable
and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favorable treatment given to such dependant of
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (7 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
the deceased employee in such posts has a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz.,
relief against destitution. No other posts are
expected or required to be given by the public
authorities for the purpose. It must be
remembered in this connection that as against the
destitute family of the deceased there are millions
of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour
of the family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by him and
the legitimate expectations, and the change in the
status and affairs, of the family engendered by the
erstwhile employments which are suddenly
upturned.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Zamil Ahmed
vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, AIR 2016 SC 2231 has
held as under :-
21. In our considered view, the aforesaid facts would
clearly show that it was a conscious decision taken by
the State for giving an appointment to the Appellant for
the benefit of the family members of the deceased who
were facing financial hardship due to sudden demise of
their bread earner. The Appellant being the only
close relative of the deceased could be given the
appointment in the circumstances prevailing in
the family. In our view, it was a right decision
taken by the State as a welfare state to help the
family of the deceased at the time of need of the
family.
22. In these circumstances, we are of the view that
there was no justification on the part of the State to
woke up after the lapse of 15 years and terminate the
services of the Appellant on such ground. In any case,
we are of the view that whether it was a conscious
decision of the State to give appointment to the
Appellant as we have held above or a case of mistake
on the part of the State in giving appointment to the
Appellant which now as per the State was contrary to
the policy as held by the learned Single Judge, the
State by their own conduct having condoned their lapse
due to passage of time of 15 years, it was too late on
the part of the State to have raised such ground for
cancelling the Appellant's appointment and terminating
his services. It was more so because the Appellant was
not responsible for making any false declaration and
nor he suppressed any material fact for securing the
appointment. The State was, therefore, not entitled to
take advantage of their own mistake if they felt it to be
so. The position would have been different if the
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (8 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
Appellant had committed some kind of fraud or
manipulation or suppression of material fact for
securing the appointment. As mentioned above such
was not the case of the State.
In the present case, the petitioner is the son of a martyr. The
appointment was made after due verification, and there is nothing
on record to suggest that the petitioner suppressed any material
fact or procured employment by playing fraud. The details
regarding his children were submitted by him in 2012 and were
duly accepted by the department. The complaint which surfaced in
2019-2020 made nearly ten years after his appointment and
service confirmation. It is well settled position that compassionate
appointment policies should not be enforced with undue rigidity.
Since the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts at the
time of submitting his application for appointment on
compassionate grounds, and the respondent authority, after
conducting a thorough and due scrutiny of all relevant documents
and eligibility criteria, had found him fit for appointment and
accordingly granted the same it would now be manifestly unjust
and excessively harsh to terminate his services after a long and
uninterrupted period of 15 years. Such action would not only
defeat the very object of compassionate appointment which is to
provide immediate relief to the bereaved family, but would also
cause irreparable harm to the petitioner, who has served the
department diligently and faithfully for over a decade without any
blemish on his record. The principle of natural justice, legitimate
expectation, and equity must weigh heavily in favour of the
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (9 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
petitioner, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation has been
attributed to him.
In the present case, the petitioner's appointment was
granted following the martyrdom of his father during military
service, and as such, the disqualification on the ground of having
three children cannot override the humanitarian objective of the
compassionate appointment scheme.
In cases involving martyrdom or extraordinary hardship, a
humane and flexible approach is constitutionally expected of
welfare from State. The insistence on technical compliance,
especially when there is no allegation of malafide or concealment,
defeats the very object of such schemes. As observed by the Apex
Court, the rules framed to serve humanitarian ends should not be
used as instruments of injustice. Even assuming there was a
technical breach, the same ought to have been viewed in the light
of the petitioner's unique circumstances and long, blemish-free
service.
It is also noted that the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report
has also noted that the petitioner has not suppressed any
information, while seeking appointment in the respondent
Department. He has also taken note of the fact that the Chief
Engineer of the respondent Department has given appointment
after thoroughly scrutinizing the requisite documents submitted by
the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized by
terminating his services at this stage.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment relied
by learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable in the
[2025:RJ-JD:29473] (10 of 10) [CW-725/2025]
present set of facts as in the case of Ramdev (supra), the petition
was filed for grant of appointment, whereas, in the present case
the services of the petitioner have been terminated after an
uninterrupted period of fifteen years. It is true that if a person is
found to be ineligible as per the Rules, he shall not be granted
appointment but if a person has already been offered appointment
and has served the Department for fifteen long years then it will
be travesty of justice to terminate his services treating him
ineligible for appointment, more particularly, when the person has
not secured the employment by unfair means. In the case of
Ramdev (supra), the appointment was denied on the ground of
ineligibility and, therefore, it was rightly held that if a person is
not eligible as per the Rules then he cannot be appointed,
whereas, in the present case, the services are being terminated on
the ground that when the petitioner was appointed fifteen years
back, he was ineligible. To hold the person ineligible and/or the
appointment was dehors the Rules after fifteen years of service
will be very harsh and unjustified, more particularly, when the
appointment was on compassionate grounds.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present
writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed.
Termination order dated 26.12.2024 is quashed and set aside.
The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
289-SanjayS/KartikDave-LR-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
