Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sharwan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16549) on 27 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:16549]



     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                             JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17684/2024
Sharwan Ram S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 19 Years,
Resident Of Village Artiya Kalla, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur.
                                                      ----Petitioner
                               Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
       Public Health And Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan, 2
       Civil Lines, Jaipur.
2.     The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health And
       Engineering Department, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3.     The Superintending Engineer, Department Of Public
       Health And Engineering Department, Jodhpur.
4.     The Executive Engineer, Department Of Public Health And
       Engineering Department, Jodhpur.
5.     The Assistant Engineer, Department Of Public Health And
       Engineering Department, Sub Division, Osiyan, Jodhpur.
                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. P.S. Chundawat

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral) 27/03/2025

1. The petitioner before this Court is assailing letter/order

dated 05.09.2023 (Annex.-15), vide which the mother of

petitioner was asked to submit succession certificate from the

competent court and the letter/order dated 05.06.2024 (Annex.-

16), vide which it was informed that there is difference in the child

declaration form and, therefore, actual record be submitted,

failing which, compassionate appointment will be not granted to

the petitioner.

2. Relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the petition

are that petitioner's father late Sohan Lal, who was employed as

Pump Operator - II in the respondent department, passed away

on 15.11.2020. As one of the dependents, the petitioner

[2025:RJ-JD:16549] (2 of 5) [CW-17684/2024]

submitted an application for granting relaxation in filing

application seeking compassionate appointment as he was a

minor.

2.1. The petitioner's mother submitted an application along with

the required documents seeking appointment of petitioner on

compassionate grounds. The said application was forwarded by

the respondents.

2.2. The mother of petitioner received a letter dated 10.07.2023

(Annexure-11) intimating that there is a mismatch in the details of

the children as mentioned by late Sohan Lal and the declaration as

made by her. Therefore, she was directed to furnish the

documents and clarify the position. Upon receiving the same, the

petitioner approached the respondents and tried to clarify the

position.

2.3. The respondents however, vide impugned letter (Annexure-

15) informed the petitioner's mother that the application seeking

compassionate appointment cannot be finalized as there is

difference in the details of children, therefore, she was asked to

submit succession certificate from the competent court.

2.4. Thereafter again vide letter/order (Annex.-16) it was

informed that there is difference in the child declaration form and,

therefore, actual record be submitted, failing which,

compassionate appointment will be not granted to the petitioner.

Hence, this petition.

3. The stand taken by the respondents in in para 6 and 7 of the

reply is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"6. That the content made in para no. 6-7 of the writ petition are not admitted. It is submitted that there is a significant difference in the number of children and their dates of birth between the declaration

[2025:RJ-JD:16549] (3 of 5) [CW-17684/2024]

submitted by Smt. Sushila W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal and the declaration submitted by Late Shri Sohan Lal attached to the service record. In the declaration made by the petitioner's father, the name is mentioned as Sukhdev and the name of the Petitioner is Sharwan Ram, and there is a discrepancy in the Date of Birth also, the date of Sukhdev is shown as 11.03.2000 whereas the date of birth of the Petitioner is 11.05.2005, along with the omission of the name of another child However, in the declaration by the petitioner's mother, the petitioner's name is mentioned as Sharwan Ram, and it includes another child as well Due to this, a letter dated 07.08.2023 was written by respondent no. 5 to the petitioner's mother to rectify the errors. Consequently, respondent no. 5 issued another letter dated 05.06.2024. Copy of the relevant page of the declaration made by Late Shri Sohan Lal in his service book, is placed on record as Annexure-R/1.

7. That the content made in para no. 9 to 11 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that the case was not being resolved by the respondent department due to errors mentioned in the declaration form. Therefore, the respondent department again informed the petitioner by letter dated 05.06.2024 to submit the actual report and also to present themselves in the respondent department. No explanation or reply has been submitted by the Petitioner till date with the respondent department, therefore, the present writ petition deserved to be quashed."

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for

the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and

have gone through the case file.

5. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the mistake in the name of petitioner occurred on the part of

the deceased father of the petitioner since at home he was

addressed with the alias of Sukhdev. At the relevant time,

petitioner's father had no premonition of any kind that an

unsavory situation will arise when his son will apply for

compassionate appointment on his dying in harness.

6. It thus transpires that there is no dispute qua the petitioner

being the biological son of the deceased employee. However, the

confusion has been caused since in some of the declaration forms

name of petitioner has been mentioned as Sukhdev.

[2025:RJ-JD:16549] (4 of 5) [CW-17684/2024]

7. Be that as it may, even if it is to be assumed that the

petitioner is not Sukhdev, the applicable policy envisages that one

dependent from the family has to be given compassionate

appointment. In absence of Sukhdev having not applied, conceded

position remains that the petitioner who is indeed biological son, is

thus entitled to seek the benefit of appointment as per the

applicable policy.

8. As regards the insistence of succession certificate by the

department, I am of the view that unless it were a case of

petitioner not being a biological son, the respondents could not

have rejected the case on the ground of succession certificate. My

view is also fortified by similar opinion expressed in the judgment

dated 02.05.2022 of this Court in Ratan Lal Keer Vs. Rajasthan

Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 2518/2022 wherein, speaking for this Court Arun Bhansali,

J. (as he then was in this Court), held as under:-

"The requirement made by the respondents seeking production of succession certificate only for the purpose of establishing the parentage of the petitioner, cannot be permitted as the succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, is issued for specific purpose and not for the purpose of establishing the parentage and/or for grant of compassionate appointment.

Infact, the petitioner had approached the District Court, Bhilwara in this regard and his application in this regard was rejected by the said court on 11.08.2021 (Annex.5).

In that view of the matter, the demand made by the respondents cannot be sustained, insofar as, the submissions made by the respondents regarding the parentage of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents in this regard are free to ascertain the facts and the claim of the petitioner regarding him being son of deceased Ladu Lal Keer and as apparently, in the present case, there are no conflicting claims and even as per the enquiry made by the respondents produced as Annex.R/3 also, the aspect is prima facie established, the respondents, on their part after holding any further enquiry, which they deem appropriate, have to process the application of the petitioner without insisting for the succession certificate.

Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The action of the respondents in seeking succession certificate from

[2025:RJ-JD:16549] (5 of 5) [CW-17684/2024]

the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to process the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment expeditiously, based on the observations made hereinbefore."

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are

directed to process the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as

possible and accord him the benefit of policy, subject of course to

the petitioner being otherwise found eligible in all other aspects.

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 70-SP-AK Chouhan/-

Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No