Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar Joshi vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:14423-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 462/2023
Dinesh Kumar Joshi S/o Late Trilok Joshi, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Merta Road, Behind Khatriyon Ka Bangla, Hari Nagar,
Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., New Power House
Road, Jodhpur. Through The Secretary (Admn.)
2. The Superintendent Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran
Nigam Ltd. Pali.
3. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran
Nigam Ltd. Merta Road, Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora with
Mr. Naresh Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
12/03/2025
1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant (writ
petitioner) against the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.17518/2022, whereby the writ petition, claiming the
relief of compassionate appointment on the post of LDC instead of
Helper Grade-I, has been dismissed.
2. The matter pertains to compassionate appointment under
the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of
Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, wherein after the
[2025:RJ-JD:14423-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-462/2023]
death of appellant's father, while being in service as Meter Reader
under the respondents, on 01.09.2006, the appellant sought
compassionate appointment, while claiming that since he was in
possession of the requisite qualification, he should have been
given appointment on the post of LDC, but the respondents have
granted appointment to the appellant on compassionate grounds
on the post of Helper Grade-I. The said action of the respondents
came to be challenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition,
which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble
Court vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2023.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
the attention of this Court towards the operative portion of the
impugned order dated 09.05.2023, which reads as under:
"The petitioner's father who was working on the post
of Meter Reader died on 01.09.2006 and the petitioner
applied for appointment under the Rules of 1996. The
respondent department appointed the petitioner on the
post of Helper Grade-I vide order dated 05.12.2006. The
petitioner enjoyed the fruits of appointment on the post of
Helper Grade-I till the year 2022 and all of a sudden, he
has assailed validity of the appointment granted to him
stating that since he was qualified to hold the post of LDC,
therefore, grant of appointment to the petitioner on the
post of Helper Grade-I was not correct.
In the opinion of this court the 'U' turn taken by the
petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law for the
reason that if a person like the petitioner who has
accepted the appointment granted to him by the
department and has continued the same for more than 16
years, it is not open for the petitioner to approach this
court and say that he should have been granted
appointment on the post of LDC instead of Helper Grade-I.
[2025:RJ-JD:14423-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-462/2023]
This court is also of the view that to challenge the
appointment order issued on 05.12.2006 after a delay of
about 17 years is unexplained, therefore, entertaining this
writ petition will be nothing but an abuse of process of
law. The examples cited by the petitioner are wholly
irrelevant for the simple reason that those persons qua
whom the petitioner is claiming parity were appointed as
Class-IV employees and as per their channel of promotion,
they have been promoted to the post of LDC. The
petitioner will be considered for promotional post only in
the channel in which he is working and the promotional
posts which are provided under the rules.
The judgment dated 26.04.2023 rendered by this
court at Jaipur Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.4176/1998 (Ashish Arora V/s Rajasthan State
Electricity Board) and other connected matter is clearly
distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that he was not in a position to refuse the
appointment granted to him by the respondents, is an
afterthought for the simple reason that if the petitioner
has enjoyed the fruits of that appointment for almost 17
years, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to say that he was wrongly appointed by the
respondent department on the post of Helper Grade-I.
Even otherwise also, it is a settled law that the petitioner
cannot ask for a post of his choice while getting
appointment under the Rules of 1996. For the grant of
compassionate appointment, the choice of post cannot be
asked for and he can only claim to be considered as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others v/s Ramesh Kumar
Sharma (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 661.
[2025:RJ-JD:14423-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-462/2023]
Therefore, in view of the discussions made above,
no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The
writ petition lacks merit, the same is hereby dismissed."
3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant, owing to the limited
grievance raised by the appellant, submits that the similarly
situated persons, who were initially appointed as Class IV
employees, are now being promoted on the post of LDC, but since,
the appellant was appointed on the post of Helper Grade-I, his
future prospects as regards his promotion on the post of LDC are
clearly obstructed by the action in question of the respondents,
instead, the appellant's initial appointment, for the said purpose,
ought to have been converted from the post of Helper Grade-I to
that of LDC, looking into the fact that he was in possession of the
requisite qualification for the said post.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
appellant (writ petitioner).
4.1. Learned counsel submits that once the appellant has
accepted grant of compassionate appointment on the post of
Helper Grade-I and continued to serve as such, then, irrespective
of his qualifications, he cannot now raise any claim or grievance
that instead thereof, he ought to have been given appointment on
the post of LDC. He further submits that as has rightly been
observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the
appellant cannot claim parity with other Class IV employees, as
they were promoted as per their channel of promotion.
[2025:RJ-JD:14423-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-462/2023]
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the father of
the appellant had passed away on 01.09.2006, whereafter,
immediately he was given compassionate appointment as Helper
Grade-I on 05.12.2006, and he continued the journey of such
employment; it was only after 17 long years, the appellant sought
upgradation of his initial post of Helper Grade-I to that of LDC.
6. This Court further finds that a compassionate appointment
was appropriately and properly given 17 years ago and was
accepted by the appointee (the present appellant) in true spirit.
Thus, such an employment having been enjoyed for tiding over
the immediate crisis, which arose way back in the year 2006,
cannot be interfered with by this Court at this belated stage, just
because something has occurred in the mind of the appellant after
17 years of employment, that he ought to have been given a
higher post.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so
as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeal.
8. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
144-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
