Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Lal Pargi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14787) on 19 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:14787]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15747/2021

Ram Lal Pargi S/o Late Shri Vitla Pargi, Aged About 46 Years,
Gandipura, Post And Village Kushalpura, District Banswara,
Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of     Rajasthan,          Through          The     Chief   Forest
         Conservator, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Banswara, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. J.K. Mishra



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

19/03/2025

1. The petitioner herein, belonging to ST category, inter alia,

seeks quashing of an order dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure-8), vide

which, the application filed by him seeking compassionate

appointment was rejected.

2. Relevant facts of the case as pleaded are as follows:-

2.1 The petitioner's father, who was employed as a Cattle Guard,

passed away in harness on 21.06.2018. As one of the dependents,

the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on

compassionate grounds on 21.07.2018 and later provided the

necessary documents.

2.2. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kushalpura, Talwada,

District Banswara, in a letter dated 30.03.2019, confirmed that

[2025:RJ-JD:14787] (2 of 6) [CW-15747/2021]

the petitioner's family was dependent on the income of the

deceased father and is in dire need of employment for survival.

2.3. The respondent department, through an order dated

05.07.2019 (Annexure-8), rejected the petitioner's application for

compassionate appointment on the grounds that, according to

Rule 8(ii) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of

Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 ('the

Rules of 1996'), the petitioner had exceeded the upper age limit of

40 years.

2.4. It is pleaded that the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur,

in the case of Tirath Raj v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 7847/2018), by order dated 31.01.2019, observed

that the service rules of the State of Rajasthan were amended,

increasing the upper age limit for appointment in government

service from 35 to 40 years through Amendment Notification

No.F.7(2) DOP/A-II/84 Pt. dated 06.03.2018. It was also observed

that the upper age limit for candidates in the general category was

increased to 40 years, with a 5-year age relaxation for SC/ST

category candidates. It is also pleaded that the age of 40 years

indicated as the upper age limited in Rule 8(ii) of the Rules of

1996 ought to be revisited by the Government. Hence, this

petition.

3. The defense taken by respondents in their reply is that in a

similar writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No.9597/2021 : Kirta

Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., this Court vide order dated

17.11.2021, while dismissing the writ petition observed that the

petitioner therein, aged 46 years, was rightly held ineligible being

over aged.

[2025:RJ-JD:14787] (3 of 6) [CW-15747/2021]

3.1. The petitioner in the instant case had attained the age of 42

years, 10 months and 2 days when his father died. The

compassionate appointment has to be granted where on account

of death of a government servant while in service the family

comes under a financial stress because the family members are

dependent upon the government servant. The intention was not to

give appointment to an unemployed family member, therefore,

petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as

a matter of right.

4. With the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel

for the parties and perused the case file.

5. First and foremost the Notification dated 06.03.2018

amending upper age in general category reads as under:-

"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A-Gr.II)

No.F.7(2)DOP/A-11/84 Pt. Jaipur, dated : 06.03.2018

NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 read with clause (b) of Article 318 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules and regulations further to amend the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Services) Rules and Regulations, 1999, namely :-

1. Short title and commencement. - (1) These rules and regulations may be called the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Services) (Amendment) Rules and Regulations, 2018.

2. Amendment of rule and regulation 14. - In rule and regulation 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Services) Rules and Regulations, 1999, for the existing expression "35 years", the expression "40 years"

shall be substituted.

By Order and in the name of the Governor

(Suhil Sharma) Joint Secretary to the Government."

[2025:RJ-JD:14787] (4 of 6) [CW-15747/2021]

6. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

(Ministerial and Subordinate Services) Rules and Regulations,

1999 reads as under:-

"14. Age:- A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in Schedule-I must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of "40 years" on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications:

Provided that:-

(i) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by:-

(a) 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, More Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections;

(b) 5 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to General category; and

(c) 10 years in the case of woman candidate belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, More Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections.

(ii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Government on a substantive basis on any post before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under these Rules and Regulations;

(iii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in the case of an ex-prisoner who was not over-age before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under these Rules and Regulations;

(iv) The Persons appointed temporarily to a post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age-limit had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they have crossed the age-limit when they appear finally before the Commission and shall be allowed up to two chances had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment.

(v) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxable by a period equal to the Service rendered in the N.C.C. in the case of Cadet Instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the maximum age limit prescribed above by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit;

(vi) The upper age limit shall be 40 years for direct recruitment in the case of person serving in connection with the affairs of the State, State Public Sector undertaking / Corporation, and Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads in substantive capacity.

(vii) "There" shall be no age limit in the case of widows and divorced woman.

Explanation :- In the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the

[2025:RJ-JD:14787] (5 of 6) [CW-15747/2021]

competent Authority and in case of divorcee she will have to furnish the proof of divorce.

(vii) The upper age limit shall be relaxed by "5 years" in the case of candidates belonging to the Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes.

(ix) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years.

(x) The person who was within the age limit on 31.02.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit up to 31.12.2024"

7. From the reply filed by the respondents it is borne out that

the age of the petitioner being 42 years at the time of his

application and he belonging to ST category is not under the

dispute. Yet, it appears that under a bona fide mistake that since

the upper age limit for entering into the government service is 40

years, therefore, it was held that petitioner being 42 years old was

not entitled to the same. However, what was lost sight of is the

fact that he belongs to the ST category and thus was entitled to 5

years of relaxation in the upper age limit as per applicable service

rules.

8. In this context, reference may also be had to a judgment

rendered in Tirath Raj v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 7847/2018) (Annexure-9), relevant part of which,

is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"We are therefore rather than going into validity of the Rule8(i), read it down to also include `widower' so as to make the rule workable or else even though a widower would be included in the definition of `dependant' but would be deprive of consideration for appointment on account of having crossed the upper age limit. Even otherwise, the State Government has recently by Notification No.F.7(2)DOP/A-II/84 Pt. dated 06.03.2018 amended all the relevant Service Rules to increase the upper age limit of 35 years in case of general category candidates to 40 years and provided age relaxation of 5 years to SC/ST category candidates.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 29.11.2017 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh in the light of this judgement

[2025:RJ-JD:14787] (6 of 6) [CW-15747/2021]

and pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within 60 days from the date copy of this order is produced before them."

9. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason why the benefit of

the same opinion be not given to the petitioner. Concededly, on

the date of application, if his ST status is genuine, he was within

the age bracket of being considered for appointment.

10. In the premise, the writ petition is allowed with the

directions to the respondents that they shall verify the ST

certificate of the petitioner and in case found genuine as on the

date of application seeking compassionate appointment his case

shall be processed in accordance with the compassionate

appointment policy applicable to the department. If found

otherwise eligible in all aspects, he shall be accorded the benefit of

the benevolent policy. Needful exercise be carried out within a