Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bunti Daughter Of Late Sh. Raju Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:18932]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5628/2024
Bunti Daughter Of Late Sh. Raju Lal, Resident Of Ward No. 24,
Ganga Colony, Mandwi Road, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Local Bodies, State Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road,
Jaipur.
2. Deputy Director (Regional), Department Of Local Bodies,
Kota.
3. Municipal Council, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalwar
Through Its Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria with
Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with
Ms. Sikha Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
Reserved on ::: 25.04.2025
Pronounced on ::: 08.05.2025
1. Laying challenge to communication dated 31.08.2020 as well
as decision taken in meetings dated 04.09.2020 and 30.10.2021,
whereby compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner in
place of her deceased father Late Shri Raju Lal has been denied,
on account of the fact that her brother Sandeep already in the
service of Municipal Board since 2015, the petitioner has filed this
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18932] (2 of 11) [CW-5628/2024]
2. Facts of the case are not much in dispute. Petitioner's father
Late Shri Raju Lal, who was holding the post of Jamadar in the
office of respondent No. 3, unfortunately passed away on
31.01.2020 while he was in service. As per the petitioner, she
belongs to a Scheduled Caste Category as well as to marginalized
and under privileged section of the society.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the
petitioner was the sole bread earner in her family. After death, he
left behind him the petitioner, her mother and one sister as well as
one brother-Sandeep.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so far
as her brother Shri Sandeep is concerned soon after his marriage
in the year 2008, he had started living separately from his father
and family. In support of such contention, separate Ration Cards
have been produced. Counsel emphasized over the fact that on
account of living separately, may be employed with Municipal
Board, Bhawanimandi, brother of the petitioner is providing no
financial help to the family of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that on account of
sudden death of her father in the aforesaid circumstances, the
petitioner, her mother and sister are striving hard even for daily
bread and butter due to abrupt financial crisis crept in the family.
Finding no other alternative and source of income, the petitioner
submitted an application for seeking compassionate appointment
in place of her deceased father, who died while in service of
respondent No. 3.
6. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that without
considering the object of compassionate appointment Rules and
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18932] (3 of 11) [CW-5628/2024]
the pathetic condition of the family, in quite mechanical manner,
application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the
respondents only on account of the fact that as per record her
brother was already employed with Municipal Board,
Bhawanimandi.
7. In quite emphatic manner, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a beneficial legislation cannot be given a narrow
interpretation in order to defeat and frustrate the very object for
which such scheme has been framed and has been given shape of
statutory Rules. The benevolent intent of the Rules is to provide
avenue on the death of bread earner in the family. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that earlier also by
applying principle of purposive construction, liberal interpretation
has been taken by this Court for the purpose of widening the
meaning of "Family" and "Dependents" defined under the
provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of
Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (in
short, Rules of 1996).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such
beneficial piece of sub-ordinate legislation if allowed to be
interpreted in a rigid manner, then it would make the entire
legislation redundant and meaningless, therefore, learned counsel
has emphasized for interpreting the provision of Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1996 in a harmonized manner, in order to make the Rules
more effective and to fulfill the very object for which such Rules
were enacted by the Rule making authority.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18932] (4 of 11) [CW-5628/2024]
No. 4387/1991); decided on 27.01.1992; Herald Hamilton vs.
State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No. 524/1987); Asha Devi Gupta
(Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 7724/2002)
decided on 01.11.2004; Neeraj Gurjar & Anr. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 7678/2011) decided on
12.12.2013 Ankit Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
(10903/2016) decided on 17.03.2023; State of Rajasthan and
Anr. vs. Sushila Devi (383/2023) decided on 04.07.2023;
Sunita Parcha vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No.
13426/2023) decided on 07.04.2025; Kumari Nisha vs. State of
U.P. and Ors. Reported in 2024 AHC 23294; Gungun vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 19232/2023
decided on 13.05.2024; Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan
(SBCWP No. 3742/2019 decided on 24.01.2025; Shakti Masala
and Ors vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (W.P No. 8526 to
8529/2012) decided on 29.04.2013.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the prayer made in the writ petition on account of the fact that the
relief sought by the petitioner is totally against the plain and,
unambiguous language used in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that Rule
making Authority, in its wisdom, has rightly prohibited
compassionate appointment under the circumstances where one
of the dependent of the deceased government servant is already
in service on regular basis under the Central Government/State
Government or statutory board, organization/corporation owned
or controlled fully or partially by the Central/State Government.
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18932] (5 of 11) [CW-5628/2024]
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out
that in the instant writ petition that the petitioner has not
challenge the vires of aforesaid Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996
therefore, the petitioner has got no right to raise any contention
contrary to the specific rules. Learned counsel for the respondents
has also submitted that no subordinate legislation can be given such an interpretation/construction, which would make the Rules redundant. Counsel submits that compassionate appointment is meant to provide employment support to a family having no other bread earner in the family, whereas in the instant case admittedly petitioner's brother is already in employment with respondent No. 3 therefore, respondents have committed no mistake in rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek a relief which is directly against the provisions of the rules.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents has consequently prayed for rejection of the writ petition while relying upon the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Jafli Devi reported in (1997) 5 SCC 301 as well another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lic vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar reported in 1994 (2) SCC 718.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties and have also scanned the record of the writ petition.
14. At the first place, it would be relevant to refer the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, which are being reproduced as under:-
5. Appointment subject to certain conditions :- (1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (6 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] 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 Government *'at the time of death of the Government servant or at the time of appointment of the dependent."
Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated.
15. Mere reading of aforesaid Rule 5 would make it clear that there is clear and absolute prohibition against granting compassionate appointment in the case where any of the (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (7 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] dependent of deceased government servant is already in employment with the government organization or corporation etc.
16. In the instant case, the petitioner's brother-Sandeep is already in the employment of Municipal Board, Bhawanimandi. Hence, under these circumstances, it is clear that request of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment for herself is totally against the plain language of the Rules of 1996. It is no longer res-integra that a compassionate appointment is not a regular source of employment and such rules have been in framed by the respondents government only to meet out an emergent situation, where any government servant unfortunately dies while in service and on account of his sudden death, the entire family has gone under grave financial calamity. However, such Rules are not meant for the persons/family, where there is already an alternative source to support the financial need of the family.
17. It is also settled preposition of law, that Rules are framed while taking into account the general situation and condition prevailing in the society. This Court has all sympathies with the petitioner, yet for the purpose of seeking relief in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person knocking the doors, has an obligation to show infringement of his statutory or fundamental right. However, in the instant petition, where statutory Rule is apparently against the petitioner no relief can be granted to her in the instant writ petition.
18. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Jaswant Singh, Sunita Parcha, Gungun, Asha Devi, Sushila (supra) are concerned, this Court was examining the definition of 'dependent' prescribed under Rule 2 (C) of the Rules (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (8 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] of 1996. While examining such Rules, principle of purposive construction was taken into account in order to maintain gender equality by granting the same benefits to the daughter, which are given to the son under the Rules. It has been held that when married son has not been ousted from the definition of 'dependent', then such benefit cannot be denied to a married daughter while interpreting the term 'daughter'. This Court further broadened definition of dependent by including 'married daughter' as well as 'daughter in law' and 'widow daughter' in such definition. As such above judgments, where by applying the principle of perposive construction of beneficial piece of legislation, the definition of 'dependent' was interpreted in a particular manner by this Court, the petitioner cannot take any help of such judgments. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) delivered in altogether different facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, is distinguishable.
19. Moreso, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jafli Devi (supra) delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the similar Rule, quite clearly it has been held that where son of deceased employee is already in government service, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to another dependent of the deceased employee. Para 4 of the above judgment is relevant and is reproduced here-under:-
"4. The submission of the learned Counsel is that in view of the said condition laid down in the policy framed by the State Government regarding giving appointment on compassionate grounds, Harbans Lal, the second son of the respondent, could not be given (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (9 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] appointment in view of the fact that another son 'of the respondent was already in government service. It is urged that the High Court was in error in quashing the order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Director of Fisheries, which was in consonance with the aforesaid policy contained in the Office Memorandum and in directing that the case of Harbans Lal for appointment on compassionate grounds be reconsidered. We find considerable force in this submissions.In LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar JT Court has laid down that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration and the Court should ensure to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. In that case it was held that direction for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be given dehors the provisions or statutory regulations or instructions governing such appointments."
20. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lic vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar has held under:-
"12. Further it is well-settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. In Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P.S.R.T. Corpn.2 it is stated as under:
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Actand in particular Sections 42 and 59 clearly debar all holders of permits including the State Road Transport Corporation from indulging in unauthorised trafficking in permits. Therefore the agreement entered into by the petitioner, unemployed graduate, with the State Road Transport Corporation to ply his bus as nominee of the Corporation on the route in respect of which the permit was issued in favour of the Corporation for a period of five years, was clearly contrary to (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (10 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] the Act and cannot, therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Corporation to allow him to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage under the permit obtained by the Corporation as its nominee."
13. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside."
21. Even otherwise as per latin maxim "Ut res magis valeat quam pereat" which means that 'it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void'. In essence, it means that Courts should prioritize interpretation of legal provisions to validate them effectively, rather than interpreting them in a way that renders them null or inefffective.
22. In the instant case, interpretation or construction proposes by the petitioner, if accepted would lead to futility as well as against the legislative intent. Hence, such proposal of liberal construction so as to ignore very purpose of prohibiting the compassionate appointment in the cases where already other dependent of the deceased employee is in service, would make the entire provision redundant and would produce unjust results.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996, the government has power to pass an order for the purpose of removing any difficulty in the implementation of any provision of these Rules in the interest of justice. The aforesaid Rule 14 is also of no help to the petitioner for the obvious reasons that the language of Rule 5 is absolutely clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. If any personal difficulty has arisen out of her own peculiar circumstances, no (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:18932] (11 of 11) [CW-5628/2024] protection of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996 can be sought by the petitioner.
24. In view of above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
25. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J ANIL SHARMA /188 (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 11:41:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)