[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam ... vs Bharat Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:15940-Db) on 7 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1428/2025

1.       Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur
         Through Its Managing Director.
2.       Secretary      (Administration),           Rajasthan         Rajya     Vidhyut
         Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur.
3.       Superintending          Engineer        (Tcc-Viii),        Rajasthan    Rajya
         Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
4.       Executive Engineer, (200 Kv Gsss) Rajasthan Rajya
         Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
5.       Junior Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam
         Ltd., Velangiri, District Sirohi.
6.       Personnel      Officer,     (Tcc-Viii)      Rajasthan        Rajya     Vidhyut
         Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Sirohi.
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Bharat Kumar S/o Late Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/
o Village Goyali, Tehsil And District Sirohi.
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav with
                                   Mr. Nilesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Pradhuman Singh with
                                   Ms. Urmila Chouhan



HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

07/04/2026

1. The present special appeal has assailed the order dated

07.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent

- petitioner and condoned the delay in moving application for

seeking compassionate appointment, taking into consideration

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:53:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-1428/2025]

that the application for compassionate appointment was filed by

the eldest son in the year 2012, but no appointment was given to

him, and ultimately he expired in 2015 and thereafter his younger

brother had applied.

2. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant - Rajasthan

Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. is that the provisions of

Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of

Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, (for brevity, 'Rules

of 1996') require application to be filed by the eldest son

immediately on attaining maturity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

eldest son attained maturity in the year 2008, and he, therefore,

should have applied for the appointment within a period of 90

days, whereas he applied after a delay of three years and six

months. Therefore, the application for compassionate appointment

could not be entertained and, upon his death, the application filed

by his younger brother in the year 2015 can not be entertained

either.

4. We have considered and noticed the facts of the case and

find that death of the employee took place on 22.08.1997 and his

widow immediately moved an application, submitting that her

children were seven-years and two-years old and as soon as they

would attain the age of majority, the application could be moved.

The family, however, waited for the eldest son to complete his

education - ITI course, before applying in the year 2012. The

application was neither rejected nor any communication was made

by the appellants to declare him ineligible.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:53:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-1428/2025]

5. After the application remained pending for approximately

three years, unfortunately, the applicant's eldest son expired in

the year 2015, and thereafter, the respondent - writ petitioner

(younger son) submitted his representation on 06.07.2015 for

seeking appointment under the Rules of 1996.

6. The appellants have denied the consideration for

appointment relying upon Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996.

7. The procedure has been laid down under Rule 10 of the

Rules of 1996, which reads as follows: -

(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 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

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:53:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-1428/2025]

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 extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

8. We noticed that the learned Single Judge has examined all

the aspects and also noted that the delay in filing application

seeking compassionate appointment by the eldest son, who later

expired, was based on practical approach rather than negligence,

as education is a legitimate step towards securing employment,

and once he completed his ITI Course, he had promptly applied.

9. On the other hand, we also noticed the dilatory conduct on

the part of the appellants in not dealing with the application of the

eldest son till he expired in the year 2015.

10. The application was again submitted by the younger brother,

and it is also noted by the learned Single Judge that subsequently,

physical and mental health of the mother declined, documents in

respect of which have been placed on record during the hearing,

and which reflect that the family cannot be said to have been able

to tide over the crisis after the death of sole bread earner, namely,

the eldest son.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:53:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-1428/2025]

11. The Rules of 1996 from the name itself are required to be

interpreted with compassion. It is to bring relief to the families

which have been facing acute financial burden.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank v. Ajith

Kumar GK : 2025 SCC online 290, has held as under: -

"26. More often than not, spurned claims for compassionate appointment reach the high courts or even this Court after consuming substantial time. The ordinary rule of litigation is that right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the suitor entered the portals of the court. The relief that the suitor is entitled in law could still be denied in equity on account of subsequent and intervening events, i.e., events between the date of commencement of the litigation and the date of the decision; however, law is well-settled that such relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum for no fault of the suitor [see : Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.50]. It would, therefore, not be prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by the court(s) to decide the issue before it.

27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 05:53:48 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15940-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-1428/2025]

28. The death of the respondent's father, in this case, occurred in December 2001. Now, we are in 2025. The respondent cannot be blamed for the delay, since he was diligently pursuing his claim before the appellant and thereafter before the High Court. Thus, irrespective of how old the respondent is presently, his age cannot be determinative for foreclosing his claim and bar a consideration of the same on merits."

13. That apart, the delay in filing the application is to be

examined on the facts of each case. Circumstances of the present

case reflect that the son, as soon as he completed his education,

applied; the delay, therefore, can always be condoned considering

the facts of particular case.

14. Power is available in the Rules of 1996 itself as the proviso to

Rule 10(3) (as reproduced above) stipulates that in exceptional

cases, where the family members of the deceased servant have

been facing undue financial hardship, the requirement interalia of

the period of limitation may be relaxed to satisfy the demand of

justice in the case at hand.

15. We find that the present case is that which falls in the said