[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Nath vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:9471]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11446/2025
Vikram Nath S/o Late Shri Moti Nath, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Dhani, Hariya Mali, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Office New Power House, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Secretary (Admn.), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Office New Power House, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Deputy Director (Headquarters), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Office New Power House, Bhagat Ki Kothi,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Sojat Road, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore
Ms. Saumya Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh on behalf of
Mr. D.S. Sodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Date of Reserve : 12/02/2026
Date of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026
1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ
petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-
A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and the respondent authority may be
directed to kindly give appointment to the petitioner in place of
his deceased father on compassionate grounds.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Communication
dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-01), wherein the application of the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9471] (2 of 5) [CW-11446/2025]
petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment was
rejected by the respondent authority on the ground that at the
time of his father's death, the age of the petitioner was 15 years
and 3 months; therefore, he can't be given compassionate
appointment in place of his deceased father, may kindly be
quashed and set aside, while extending him the benefit of
appointment on compassionate basis.
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying
appointment on a compassionate basis to the petitioner in place
of his deceased father on the ground that at the time of his
father's death, the age of the petitioner was 15 years and 3
months, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
D. By arn appropriate writ order or the direction, the respondent
authority may kindly be directed to consider petitioner's
candidature for the purpose of compassionate appointment in
place of his deceased father from the initial date filing the
application with all of consequential benefits.
E. Or alternatively, by an appropriate writ order or respondent
direction, the authority may kindly be directed to give an
appointment to the mother or sister of the petitioner on
compassionate grounds, and the petitioner may kindly be with
accrued compensated along wit interest on the ground of illegal
and unexplained delay.
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction ....."
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present
controversy are that the father of the petitioner, Shri Motilal Nath,
while working on the post of Helper in the office of the Assistant
Engineer, Sojat, died on 12.05.2021. The petitioner, on
04.03.2024, submitted an application under the compassionate
appointment rules prevailing in the respondent organization, i.e.,
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., seeking appointment to the post
of C.A.-II, for which he possessed the requisite educational
qualifications. The Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom,
Jodhpur, vide communication dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-1),
informed the petitioner that since he was a minor, i.e., aged about
15 years and 03 months at the time of the death of his father, he
was not entitled to appointment as claimed. Accordingly, his
original documents and application were returned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
no rule has been cited in the communication dated 21.02.2025
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9471] (3 of 5) [CW-11446/2025]
(Annexure-1) requiring that the minimum age of the dependent
must be 16 years or above at the time of the death of the
employee. He submitted that the rules governing compassionate
appointment generally prescribe the minimum age for submitting
an application, which pertains to eligibility at the time of
application. Learned counsel further submitted that the ground of
rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment as he was only 15 years and 03 months old at the
time of his father's death is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the
impugned communication dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-1)
deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary.
4. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the orders dated
05.04.1997 and 18.11.1999 (Annexure-5), learned counsel
submitted that in the case of the unfortunate death of an
employee, it is the duty of the competent authority of the
Department to promptly inform the widow and other dependents
of the deceased employee about the provisions and procedure for
claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel
further submitted that employers have a duty to inform
dependents of their rights under the compassionate appointment
scheme, particularly when the dependents are minors or unaware
of the procedural requirements.
5. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the
father of the petitioner was a low-paid employee of the respondent
organization, who died while battling COVID-19. Therefore,
prompt action on the application submitted by the petitioner
seeking compassionate appointment was expected on the part of
the respondent so as to provide immediate relief to the bereaved
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9471] (4 of 5) [CW-11446/2025]
family of the deceased, thereby protecting the interests of the
dependents of the employee who died in harness. On these
grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to allow the present
writ petition and appoint the petitioner in place of his deceased
father on compassionate ground.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The communication dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-1), issued
from the office of the Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom,
Jodhpur, is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"उपरोक्त विषयान्तर्गत आप द्वारा श्री विक्रम नाथ पुत्र स्व. श्री मोतीनाथ पू र्व
टे क्निशियन द्वितीय की निगन सेवा के दौरान दिनां क 12.05.2021 को मृत्यु होने के
फलस्वरूप उनके स्थान पर अनुकंपात्मक आधार पर नियुक्ति हे तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरण का
अवलोकन करने से यह विदित हुआ है कि श्री विक्रम नाथ की जन्मतिथि 13.02.2006 है
जिसके अनुसार उनके पिता स्व. श्री मोतीनाथ की मृत्यु की तिथि को उनकी आयु मात्र 15
वर्ष 3 माह है . जबकि निगम के आदे श क्रमां क 324 प्रे 673 दिनां क 27.6.2019
(एडीएमएन 250) के अनुसार अनुकंपात्मक आधार पर नियुक्ति हे तू आवेदक की न्यूनतम
आयु 16 वर्ष होने पर ही आवेदक को 18 वर्ष की आयु अर्जित होने पर नियमानुसार
नियुक्ति प्रदान की जा सकेगा। अतः उक्त प्रकरण में किसी प्रकार की कार्यवाही अपेक्षित
नही ं होन से प्रकरण के साथ प्रेषित किये गये मूल दस्तावेज आपको लौटाये जा रहे है । इस
संबंध में स्व. श्री मोतीनाथ के अन्य पात्र आश्रितों द्वारा यदि अनुकंपात्मक आधार पर
नियुक्ति हे तु आवेदन किया जाता है तो उस पर नियमानुसार विचार किया जा सकता है ।
सूचनार्थ प्रेषित है ।"
8. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the impugned communication dated 21.02.2025
(Annexure-1), finds that, as per the respondents, compassionate
appointment can be granted to the wards of a deceased
Government servant only if, at the time of the employee's death,
the dependent is above 16 years of age, i.e., the minimum age
prescribed for submitting an application seeking compassionate
appointment, which can thereafter be kept alive for consideration
until he attains the age of majority, i.e., 18 years. Admittedly, in
the present case, the petitioner was below the age of 16 years at
the time of the death of his father.
9. In the opinion of this Court, although appointments on
compassionate grounds are an exception to the general rule of
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9471] (5 of 5) [CW-11446/2025]
recruitment and are made to mitigate the hardship suffered by the
family of a deceased Government employee, the
Government/Jdvvnl cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely until
a minor child attains majority for submitting application for
employment. It is to be noted that the eligibility or minimum age
criteria has been prescribed only for the wards of the deceased
Government employee and in cases where, considering the
financial hardship suffered by the family, the widow of the
deceased employee herself applies for compassionate
appointment, no maximum age limit for consideration of such
application is prescribed under the rules.
10. Thus, the action of the respondent in rejecting the
petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment on the
ground that, at the time of his father's death, he did not meet the
minimum age criteria prescribed for submitting the application,
and therefore his claim for appointment could not be kept alive
until he attained majority, cannot be faulted. The impugned
communication dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure-1) does not suffer
from any illegality or arbitrariness.
11. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed, being
devoid of any merit.
12. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 02:44:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
