Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satish Mohanpuria vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:49814-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 720/2025
Satish Mohanpuria S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Mohanpuria,
Aged About 21 Years, Regar Basti, Ward No.2, Ambedkar Colony,
Deeppura Road, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical
Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Deputy Director, (Nursing), Medical Health And
Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Deedwana-
Kuchaman
5. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Kuchaman City, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Ms. Aditi Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
18/11/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition filed by the appellant
was dismissed.
2. The factual matrix in brief is that the appellant's father, who
was employed as a Ward Boy in the office of the Block Chief
Medical Officer, died in harness on 30.06.2015. At the time of his
father's death, the appellant was a minor (aged about 11 years).
Moreover, the marriage between the appellant's father and mother
had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated
17.06.2014. Being a minor, the appellant could not be considered
for compassionate appointment immediately after his father's
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:51:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49814-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-720/2025]
death. After attaining majority, the appellant submitted a fresh
application for compassionate appointment, which came to be
rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.02.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that
the appellant's family is in penurious circumstances and therefore,
a sympathetic and lenient view may be taken. He has placed
reliance on a circular dated 05.06.2025 issued by the State
Government whereby in cases where the son/daughter was a
minor at the time of the death of the government servant and
spouse of deceased was not available, the period for submitting an
application for compassionate appointment has been
relaxed/extended up to 90 days from the date on which the minor
attains the age of 16 years or majority.
3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the judgment of the
Division Bench in Gopal Singh Chouhan v. Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur & Anr. (relied upon by the learned Single Judge) is
distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that the circular dated 05.06.2025 cannot be given
retrospective effect, as the appellant's cause of action and
rejection both predate the issuance of the said circular; even on
merits, the circular is of no assistance to the appellant because
the benefit of the extended period of 90 days is available only if
the application is moved within 90 days of the minor attaining the
age of 16 years or majority and provided the spouse of the
deceased employee is not alive/available. In the present case, the
appellant admittedly applied only after attaining the age of 19
years (as evident from Annexure-7 filed with the writ petition),
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:51:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49814-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-720/2025]
which is far beyond the permissible extended period even under
the circular.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that it is
an admitted position that the father of the appellant died on
30.06.2015 i.e., more than ten years ago. The Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased
Government Servants Rules, 1996 do not contemplate
consideration of a person who was a minor at the time of death
after such a long lapse of time. The object of compassionate
appointment is to tide over the sudden financial crisis faced by the
family upon the untimely death of the breadwinner and not to
provide an alternative source of employment after a decade. The
circular dated 05.06.2025, even if assumed to be beneficial,
cannot be applied retrospectively, especially when the rejection
order was passed in February 2024, much prior to its issuance.
Moreover, the appellant's own application (Annexure-7) shows that
he applied only after attaining the age of 19 years, which is
beyond the maximum extended period contemplated even under
the said circular.
6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality
and perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
that may warrant interference in the appeal.
7. Consequently, the special appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
15-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 04:51:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
