Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharat Kumar vs R.R.V.P. N. Ltd. And Ors. ... on 7 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12990]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10350/2016
Bharat Kumar S/o Late Shri Deva Ram (Helper-II), Aged
About 22 years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o village Goyali,
Tehsil & District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur
through its Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Administration), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Engineer (TCC-VIII) Rajasthan Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
4. Executive Engineer (200 KV GSS) Rajasthan Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
5. Junior Engineer, Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam
Ltd., Velangiri, District Sirohi.
6. Personnel Officer (TCC-VIII) Rajasthan Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradhyuman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
Mr. Vipul Dharnia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/03/2025
1. Fate has rather been cruel to the petitioner herein. He
was a mere two-year-old when tragedy first struck. He lost
his father, the sole bread winner of family, and was left to
be raised by his illiterate widowed mother, who struggled to
survive on a meager family pension. Tragedy struck again,
when his elder brother, the family's last hope, also died
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (2 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
while his application for a compassionate appointment was
still pending. The weight of these unbearable losses
shattered his mother's mental stability. Now, with nothing
but the scars of relentless misfortune, he stands before this
Court, seeking not charity, but in hope for justice by way of
a directive to the respondents to alleviate his suffering and
grant him the compassionate appointment in terms of the
applicable policy when an employee dies in harness.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:-
2.1. The father of the petitioner, working as Helper-II with
the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam
Ltd. (for brevity, 'the Nigam'), passed away on 22.08.1997.
Upon his death, his widow Smt. Anshu immediately
submitted an application dated 29.08.1997 along with
requisite documents stating inter-alia that she being
illiterate, compassionate appointment be given to either of
the sons (aged 7 years and 2 years respectively) upon
attaining majority.
2.2. Upon attaining majority, Kamlesh` Kumar (elder
brother of the petitioner), approached the respondents for
grant of compassionate appointment. After consistent
persuasions, finally the matter of brother of the petitioner
was processed by the respondents vide communication
dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2). Thereafter, the
application of petitioner's elder brother moved from table to
table but to no avail. Unfortunately, the petitioner's brother
also expired untimely on 22.06.2015.
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (3 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
2.3. The petitioner then moved a representation dated
06.07.2015 to the respondents informing about the death
of his elder brother and, therefore, substitute him as
compassionate appointee. However, despite legal notice
nothing was heard by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondent-Nigam in its reply
is that as per the provisions of the Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996, the surviving spouse
should have applied for appointment of self or any other
dependent within a period of 45/90 days respectively from
the date of death of employee. In the present case, neither
the surviving spouse, i.e. the widow, submitted an
application for compassionate appointment nor the timely
information of minor dependent on attaining the age of
majority was given in the prescribed time limit. It is stated
inter-alia that the elder son attained majority on
07.04.2008. The application for compassionate appointment
was received in the year 2012, i.e. after about a delay of
three and a half years. Therefore, the same was found to be
belated for giving appointment on compassionate ground.
Said decision was communicated vide letter dated
13.07.2015. Likewise, the application of the present
petitioner was also found barred by time for the same,
which decision was communicated vide communication
dated 15.02.2016 (Annex.R/6).
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival
contentions and perused the case file.
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (4 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that family
of the petitioner resides in tribal area and for surviving, the
family is dependent upon meager family pension, which was
accorded to the widow mother. He further points out that
the petitioner or his brother, since they lived in the remote
tribal area, were ignorant about the application to be filed
within 90 days and were sanguine that upon the elder
brother of the petitioner completing his education, he would
get favourable treatment as per Rule 10 ibid, upon their
approaching the respondents. It was in these
circumstances, delay of 3 years 6 months took place and
the petitioner's elder brother, as soon as finishing
education, applied for compassionate appointment. He
would argue that even the aforesaid Rule 10, in its proviso,
clearly envisages that in exceptional cases, the limitation
can be condoned by the competent authority.
6. Instant is a case, he would submit that not only the
entire family was visited with financial calamity reducing
them to live in penury with the meager family pension given
to the widow mother and had to barely scrape through
student days of petitioner's elder brother to wait for his
degree to get benefit of the same only to be told that their
application is time barred. He would further point out that
after the death of the elder brother, the petitioner is the
only surviving male member in the family and has to look-
after his widow mother and in the family pension two of
them are unable to survive given the extra expenditure,
which the petitioner has to bear on the treatment of his
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (5 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
mother, who having lost her husband and thereafter elder
son, at young age of 22 years, is suffering from both
physical and mental ailments.
7. On a Court query, as to how does he contend that the
mother is suffering from mental ailment, in the course of
hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered the
aforesaid medical record of the mother of the petitioner in
support of the fact that she is currently is not in sound state
of mind being under severe depression caused by death of
her husband and elder son.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 774] and
Tinku Vs. State of Haryana [2024 INSC 867]. He
argues that the delay in approaching the courts for
redressal after a period of 3 years is fatal. The very
objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family
is extinguished. In any case, it is not a vested right but a
discretion of the employer, he contends.
9. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording
reasons hereinafter. First and foremost, the impugned order
dated 15.02.2016 (Annex.R/6), vide which application of
the petitioner was rejected may be seen. The translated
version of the same is reproduced as under:-
"Rajasthan State Electricity Transmission
Corporation Limited
Vidyut Bhawan, Jyothi Nagar, Jaipur
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (6 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
No. RVPN/ Personnel/ Compassionate/ P.540/469 Jaipur 15.02.2016
Technical Assistant-Hon'ble Minister of State,
Energy Department,
Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
Subject:- Regarding compassionate appointment of Shri
Bharat Kumar S/o. late Shri DevaramMeghwal.
Reference:- In continuation of your office letter No. 4838
dated 06.10.2015.
Sir,
In respect of the aforesaid subject matter and the
letter referred to, it is requested that Superintending
Engineer (TCC-VIII) RRVPNL, Sirohi had forwarded an
application form of Shri Bharat Kumar son of late Shri
Devaram Meghwal, vide letter number 1350 dated
11.08.2015.
In this regard, it is stated that Shri Devaram passed
away on 22.08.1997. He was working as Assistant-II in
the office of Executive Engineer (220 KV GSS),
RRVPNL, Sirohi. The deceased's wife Smt. Anshu Devi
had submitted an application form for compassionate
appointment of her elder son Shri Kamlesh Kumar on
11.01.2012. At that time, Shri Kamlesh Kumar was 21
years old. As per the date of birth of Shri Kamlesh
Kumar as 08.04.1990, he had attained the age of 18 years
(adulthood) on 07.04.2008.
Therefore, he should have submitted the
application for the job within 90 days (by 06.07.2008)
after the said date, but the applicant submitted the
application after about 03 years 06 months 06 days and
did not present any justifiable reason for submitting it
late. Therefore, the application for compassionate
appointment of Shri Kamlesh Kumar was not considered.
The information of which has been sent to you through
letter no. 347 dated 13.07.2015.
Subsequently, Superintending Engineer (TCC-
VIII), RRVPNL, Sirohi, forwarded the compassionate
appointment case of Shri Kamlesh Kumar's younger
brother, Shri Bharat Kumar, informing that Shri Kamlesh
Kumar had passed away on 22.06.2015. Since Shri
Kamlesh Kumar's case was submitted with a delay of 3
years, 6 months, and 6 days, and was therefore rejected,
the application submitted by his younger brother, Shri
Bharat Kumar, after his death, has also not been
considered.
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (7 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
The factual position is forwarded for your
information.
Yours sincerely
Pukhraj Sen
Secretary (Administration)"
9.1 Before proceeding further, let us see relevant clause of
the rules, i.e. the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of
Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules,
1996, which was applicable in the case of the petitioner.
Rule 10 thereof reads as under:-
"10. Procedure.
(1) On the death of a Government servant the
surviving spouse shall apply for appointment for self or
for any other dependent.
(2) Where the deceased Government servant is not
survived by a spouse the application shall be made by
one of the dependents of the deceased Government
servant and other dependents shall have to give their
consent for his/her candidature.
Provided that if more than one of the dependents
seek employment, the Head of Department shall select
one, keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of
the entire family, particularly the minor members.
(3) Such application shall be made in the Performa
attached as Annexure-A to the Head of the
Office/Department within a period of three months from
the date of death of the Government servant. The
applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly
income (from all sources) of the entire family members
mentioned in Column No.7 of the prescribed
application. 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 of 18 years by such eldest
dependent.
Provided that in an exceptional case where the state
Government in the Department of Personnel is satisfied
that the operation of provisions of this sub-rule causes
financial hardship to the family of the deceased
Government servant and considers it necessary or
expedient to relax the provisions of this sub-rule to such
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (8 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider
necessary for dealing with the case in a just and
equitable manner."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.2 In light of Rule 10(3), it is thus, not disputed that in
case of minors, their application for compassionate
appointment was to be considered at the relevant time,
upon attaining majority. The petitioner's elder brother, at
the time of turning 18 years, was a student and was
studying in ITI Course, who unfortunately died during
pendency of his application seeking compassionate
appointment, on 22.06.2015.
10. A perusal of the rejection order reveals that the
rejection of the petitioner's application is not on the ground
that his brother was minor at the time of applying. It was
rejected on the ground that upon attaining majority, he
ought to have applied within 90 days whereas he had
committed delay of 3 years & 6 months and thus, his
application was found to be time barred.
11. The conceded position is that death of the employee
took place on 22.08.1997 and at the relevant time, the
petitioner's elder brother was seven years old and the
petitioner was two years' old.
12. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court, in the
case of Smt. Maya L. Dinghrani Vs. U.C.O. Bank [2002
(2) RLR 74], speaking for this Court, J.C. Verma, J. (as he
then was), observed and held as under:-
"(7) The members of the deceased are not normally
aware of their any right under the scheme to apply for
the compassionate appointment until and unless they are
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (9 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
so informed and, therefore, it is, therefore advisable that
while granting the service benefits to the dependents, it
shall be the duty of the employer in situation to inform
the dependent as well of any of his right to apply if the
circumstance so warrants for him to apply for the job on
compassionate grounds. On such contingency of
information being made to such dependents, the
employer is entitled to say that he had given the
information to the dependent or the legal heir of the
existence of the rules and right to make the application
for compassionate appointment but in the absence of
such information having passing to such dependents,
time bound clause viz., a viz dependents may not be
invoked as the dependents may not be knowing the rules
of the institution or where supposed to know rule of the
scheme of the bank as no such situation could arise of
would have arisen during the life time of the employee.
It shall be appropriate that the institution respondent
should invariably inform the existence of the scheme to
such dependents or to the legal heirs who receive the
benefits after the death of such employee. In the present
case the action of the respondent bank cannot be
sustained in view of the facts that the petitioner No.2
was minor of the age of 12 years and she could only
apply for compassionate grounds after attaining the age
of majority which was so done by the petitioner No.2
and after the attaining the age of majority, the
application is deemed to be within time and could not
have been rejected on this reason."
13. I am in agreement with the aforesaid view. No doubt,
the aforesaid view cannot be applied in rem and it is
dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case.
However, having noted the peculiar facts in the present
case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves
compassion and his case ought to have been dealt in terms
of the benevolence as legislatively intended by virtue of
framing of the applicable Rules herein.
14. Purpose of Compassionate Appointment is to provide
immediate relief to the family of a deceased government
servant, mitigating the financial distress caused by the loss
of the breadwinner. In this case, ever since the father's
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (10 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
death in 1997, the family has relied solely on a meager
family pension, insufficient to meet their basic needs. There
is thus ongoing penury and calamity warranting its
alleviation. The petitioner's mother is illiterate and currently
suffers from both physical and mental ailments, rendering
her unable to support the family. The petitioner, as the only
surviving male member after the death of his elder brother,
Kamlesh Kumar, in 2015, is now the sole potential
breadwinner. Denying compassionate appointment would
perpetuate the family's financial hardship, defeating the
benevolent intent of the scheme.
15. Rule 10(3) of the 1996 Rules allows dependents who
are minors at the time of the employee's death to apply for
compassionate appointment within three months of
attaining the age of 18. At the time of their father's death,
the petitioner was 2 years old, and his elder brother was 7,
clearly qualifying them as minors entitled to this provision.
Relaxation in Exceptional Cases: The proviso to Rule 10(3)
explicitly permits the state government to relax the time
limit in exceptional cases where strict adherence would
cause financial hardship to the family. The family's
prolonged financial distress, the mother's deteriorating
health, and the elder brother's death while his application
was pending constitute exceptional circumstances justifying
relaxation of the time limit.
16. Adverting to the reasons for delay in filing the
application--approximately three and a half years after the
elder brother attained majority in 2008--was not
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (11 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
intentional. The family resides in a remote tribal area,
lacked awareness of the precise procedural requirements,
and was not well-versed with the 90-day time limit post-
majority. This ignorance is reasonable given their socio-
economic background and limited access to information. In
any case, even the application of elder brother was
deemingly rejected posthumously.
16.1. The family, with reasonable expectation, waited
for Kamlesh Kumar to complete his education (an ITI
course) before applying in 2012, believing this would
strengthen his eligibility. This delay reflects a practical
approach rather than negligence, as education is a
legitimate step toward securing employment. In Smt. Maya
L. Dinghrani Vs. U.C.O. Bank [2002 (2) RLR 74], this court
held that employers have a duty to inform dependents of
their rights under compassionate appointment schemes,
especially when dependents are minors or unaware of
procedural requirements. The court further ruled that
applications from minors, filed after attaining majority,
should not be rejected solely on grounds of delay if the
employer failed to provide such information.
16.2. There is no material to suggest that the Nigam
informed Smt. Anshu or her sons about the specific time
limits or the need to apply within 90 days of attaining
majority. Given the mother's illiteracy and the family's
remote location, the Nigam's failure to communicate these
requirements shifts the burden in favor of condonation of
the delay.
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (12 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
17 The objective of providing relief to the family does not
necessarily get extinguished merely due to a delay. If the
family remained in distress throughout the period, the need
for amelioration persists even harder, and the state has a
duty to ensure justice rather than penalize procedural
delays.
17.1. After Kamlesh Kumar's death in 2015, the
petitioner promptly submitted his representation on July 6,
2015, with diligence once he became the eligible
dependent.
18. I am of the view that exceptional Circumstances exist
warranting relief, given the compounded family tragedy of
two bread winners. The death of the elder brother in 2015,
while his application was still pending, and the mother's
subsequent physical and mental decline (evidenced by
medical records tendered during the hearing) exacerbate
the family's plight. With the mother unable to work and the
family pension inadequate--especially given additional
medical expenses--the petitioner's appointment is critical to
the family's survival.
19. The Nigam's rejection letter (Annex.R/6, dated
February 15, 2016) primarily hinges on the delay in
Kamlesh Kumar's application (filed in 2012, over three
years after he turned 18 in 2008) and extends this rationale
to dismiss the petitioner's application. However, this
approach overlooks the petitioner's independent eligibility
as the next surviving dependent after his brother's death.
The Nigam did not evaluate the petitioner's application
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (13 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
afresh, despite the misfortune and further family calamity
following Kamlesh Kumar's death. The petitioner's prompt
representation in 2015 ought to have been considered on
its own merits, and not a blanket rejection based on his
brother's case.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents cites Punjab
State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nirval Singh to lay stress
on the time limits. However, in Nirval Singh, the delay was
seven years, and the policy had changed during the interim,
rendering the applicant ineligible under the new rules. Here,
the 1996 Rules remain applicable without substantive
changes affecting eligibility. Likewise, in Tinku Vs. State of
Haryana; there is once again, no quibble on the proposition
to uphold time limits, however, it has to be seen fact-
specifically. The exceptional circumstances here--tribal
residence, ignorance of rules, the elder brother's death, and
the mother's health--differentiate this case, justifying
benevolent outlook under the proviso to Rule 10(3).
21. Accordingly, invoking the proviso of Rule 10 ibid, the
petitioner's delay in approaching to seek compassionate
appointment is condoned. The matter is remitted back to
the competent authority of the respondents, who shall
decide the case of the petitioner on merit without being
influenced by the delay caused in filing the application and
in accordance with the applicable rules and policy at the
time of death of the petitioner's father.
[2025:RJ-JD:12990] (14 of 14) [CW-10350/2016]
22. Needful be done within a period of two months upon
approaching the petitioner with web-print of the instant
order.
23. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
24. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
115-SP/skm/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
