Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhamini Shrimali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12084) on 4 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12084]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1247/2022
Bhamini Shrimali W/o Shri Dilip Shrimali D/o Shri Ganesh
Shanker Shrimali, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of House H.no.
002 Amar Kunj, Jiwan Tara Enclave Dewali Gram, Udiapur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer, Secondary, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Bali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bang for
Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
04/03/2025
1. The petitioner herein is before the Court seeking
compassionate appointment due to the death of her mother, Smt.
Mamta Shrimali, who was serving as a Senior Teacher (Sanskrit)
at the time she passed away.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's mother Smt.
Mamta Shrimali was working on the post of Senior Teacher, died
on 25.04.2021. On her death, requisite application in prescribed
performa was submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds under Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants
Rules, 1996. Due affidavits have been given by both her sisters
and her father that she is dependent on them and no person in
[2025:RJ-JD:12084] (2 of 4) [CW-1247/2022]
their family is in government employment, further it was
specifically stated that husband of petitioner is also unemployed.
2.1. Despite this, her candidature has not been considered and
her application has been kept pending which is against the basic
intention of Rules of 1996. Hence, this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the case record.
4. Under the Rules of 1996 definition of dependants has been
mentioned in Rule 2(c) of the Rules ibid. The same is quoted
hereunder:
"2(c) Dependant means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed
daughter, [adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter] legally
adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life
time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased
government servant at the time of his/her death."
4.1. Now State Government has amended the Rule 2(c) of the
Rules of 1996 and vide Notification dated 28.10.2021, pursuant to
which, it is clear that married daughter is also included in the
definition of dependant. As petitioner is married daughter and in
her family there is no son and both her sisters are married and
settled in their family therefore petitioner falls in the definition of
dependent.
5. It transpires that the only reason of rejection of petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment is that she being a married
daughter as on the date of her deceased mother, is not entitled to
any such benevolence.
6. Reliance has been placed on Rule 2 of Rules, ibid, which was
amended vide a notification dated 28.10.2021 (Annex.4), which
reads as under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:12084] (3 of 4) [CW-1247/2022]
"2. Amendment of rule 2.-
The existing Clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996, shall be substituted by the
following, namely:-
"(C) Dependent" means:-
(i) Spouse, or
(ii) son including son legally adopted by the deceased
Government servant during his/her life time, or
(iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including
daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant
during his/her life time, or
(iv) married daughter, if no other dependant of the deceased
Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is
available, or
(v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in
case of unmarried deceased Government servant,
who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government
servant at the time of his/her death."
7. Aforesaid Rule was subject matter of interpretation before
the Full Bench of this Court and while striking down the word
'unmarried' from the definition of 'dependent' qua a daughter, the
Court proceeded on to discuss the issue whether the same would
apply to the concluded cases or not, observed/held as under:
"So far as apprehensions expressed by the learned
counsel for the respondent-State and certain other counsel
regarding the consequence of striking down of the word
'unmarried' are concerned, the same are apparently misplaced,
inasmuch as, merely on account of quashing of the said word
'unmarried' from the definition, by itself cannot revive the
concluded cases wherein the appointments have already been
accorded in terms of the existing provisions. Further even after,
quashing of the word 'unmarried' from the definition, the same
would apply to the pending cases only as the likely applicants,
qua whom the cause of action had arisen long back even
otherwise would not be eligible, in view of repeated
pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the
purpose of grant of compassionate appointments i.e. for the
purpose of tiding over the immediate requirement, which arises
on account of death of the government servant while in service.
In cases where the government servant has died long back, the
striking down of the word from the definition, by itself would not
provide any fresh cause of action to any of the applicants and,
therefore, the apprehension expressed, has no basis.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
[2025:RJ-JD:12084] (4 of 4) [CW-1247/2022]
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. I see no reason why the benefit of Full Bench judgment ibid
be not accorded to the petitioner herein.
9. In the premise, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents-
authorities are directed to consider and decide the application /
claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, if
otherwise found legally entitled, in accordance with judgment
rendered in Priyanka Shrimali (supra). Needful exercise be carried
out within a period of six weeks of petitioner approaching the
respondents with a web-print of instant order.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
107-/Jitender/Sumit
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
