Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaurav Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 28 July, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 / 2017.
Gaurav Sharma S/o Sh. Gopi Krishan Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, B/c Brahmin R/o Ward No. 22, Rajeev Basti, Rawatsar
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. Chief Medical Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Chief Medical and Health Department Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
4. Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Rawatsar
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
28/07/2017
BY THE COURT:
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 14.03.2016 whereby, his application, seeking compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased (2 of 4) [CW-7462/2017] Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules of 1996") has been rejected.
The facts, in brief, for the decision of the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner namely, Gopi Krishan Sharma, had been working on the post of Male Nurse, when he expired on 19.01.2016. The petitioner, being son of the said deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment under the aforesaid Rules of 1996. The petitioner's application has been rejected by the respondents way of the order impugned dated 14.03.2016 stating that the petitioner's elder brother namely, Gautam, aged 28 years, has been working in the Government Service w.e.f. 06.05.2015. The relevant part of the order impugned dated 14.03.2015 is reproduced as under:-
^^mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr [k.M eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh jkorlj ds i= dzekad 891 fnukad 26-02-2016 dh fVIi.kh vuqlkj Lo- Jh xksih d`'.kk "kekZ ulZ Js.kh & izFke ds cMs iq= Jh xkSre mez 28 o'kZ 06-05-2015 ls jktdh; lsok (f"k{kk foHkkx) izkscs"ku dky esa r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid gSa vkSj vki v/;;ujr gSaA vkids ifjokj dk ,d lnL; jktdh; lsok esa gksus ij vki e`rd vkfJr vuqdEikRd fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha gSaA^^ Assailing the order impugned dated 14.03.2016, Mr. Pramendra Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner's brother, said Gautam, does not come within the definition of 'Dependant', as on the date of death of the deceased employee, he had got married and was given appointment and, as such, he cannot be treated to be a 'Dependant' of the deceased employee.
(3 of 4) [CW-7462/2017] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned.
The argument of the petitioner, that the brother of the petitioner namely, Gautam, does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'Dependant', is absolutely fallacious. For the purpose of seeking appointment, as per the Rules of 1996, what is relevant is, as to whether, an incumbent seeking compassionate appointment is dependant or not. The factum as to whether, his brother is dependant or not, is absolutely irrelevant, since no appointment has been claimed for the brother.
The petitioner's candidature seems to have been rejected in light of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, which provides that employment under the Rules shall not be granted to a candidate, in case, his spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters or other family members, are in the Government employment on regular post. It will not be out of place to reproduce Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under:-
"5. Appointment subject to certain conditions.- [(1)] When a Government Servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government Service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/ adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/ any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State (4 of 4) [CW-7462/2017] Government at the time of death of the Government Servant.
Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself."
Since, one son (Gautam) is an employee with the State Government, petitioner's candidature has been rightly rejected.
At this juncture, Mr. Pramendra Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, quoted hereinabove, requires that the employment of the family member of the deceased should be employment on regular basis whereas, the petitioner's brother Gautam was on probation on the date of death of the deceased employee.
This argument of the petitioner is also misplaced inasmuch as, the word used in the Rules of 1996 is "Regular Basis". A purposive reading of the expression of these words used in Sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 leave no room for doubt that intention of the framers was to exclude those dependants, out of whom, one is in employment on regular basis which means, that the employment has been granted pursuant to proper process of selection and the same is governed by the Statutory Rules. The expression used in Sub-rule (1) is only to safeguard the interest of those dependants, whose family members has been appointed on contractual, temporary or on adhoc basis.
Bereft of any substance and force, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/45