Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jaya Bhaduri vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 16 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)WLC559, 2001(2)WLN364
ORDER Garg, J.
By this judgment, the above eight special appeals (writ) are being decided together, as in all of them common questions of law and facts arise.
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99 (2). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1589/1998 before this Court on 6.5.1998 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father late Shri Jagdish was working as Class-IV employee under the control of respondent No. 2 (The Manager, Circuit House, Jodhpur) and her father Jagdish died on 3.10.1997 while he was in service. After the death of her father Jagdish, the appellant-petitioner moved an application through her mother for providing her appointment under The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). But, the application of the appellant-petitioner for providing her appointment under the Rules of 1996 was rejected vide order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex. 1) passed by the Asstt. Secretary to Govern-
ment, General Administration (Group-5) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the same was communicated to the appellant-petitioner's mother vide letter dated 24.2.1998 (Annex.2). In the rejection order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex. 1), it has been stated inter-alia that according to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, if the wife of the deceased is already employed, appointment cannot be given to any other dependants and since wife of the deceased Jagdish is already in employment, no appointment can be given to the appellant-petitioner.
(3). Aggrieved from the said order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex. 1) and 21.2.1998 (Annex. 2), the appellant-petitioner filed the said writ petition before this Court. In the said writ petition, validity of the provisions of Rule-5 of the Rules of 1996 was challenged.
(4). The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said writ petition vide order dated 18.3.1999 holding inter-alia that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is a valid one and it serves the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 have been framed.
(5). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.3.1999, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner.
(6). In this special appeal also, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule - 5 of the Rules of 1996 contending inter-alia that the said Rule 5 was enacted in derogation with the objects sought to be achieved and it was also contrary to the provisions laying down the definition of the family members. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the said Rule - 5 of the Rules of 1996 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and invalid as it creates hindrance in serving the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 have been enacted, for the reason that in a given case, son or daughter, who is in service, may not be financially supporting the family of the deceased employee and in such a case, the family may face starvation.
(7). Before appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, it would be worthwhile to first reproduce hereinbelow Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 as amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 19.4.1999:-
"Rule 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:- 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 Government at the time of death of the Government servant.
Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself."
(8). The word 'Dependant' has been defined in Clause (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996. The said Clause (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 was amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 19.4.1999 and the amended Clause (c) of Rule 2 reads as under-
"Dependant' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death."
(9). Before proceeding further, legal aspect with respect to for what purpose compassionate appointments are made and what is the object behind them may be seen For that, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1), Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (3), Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (4), State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha (5), Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar (6), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A.Radhiki Thirumalai (7), Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tan war and Anr. (8), Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Hakim Singh (9), Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Ors. (10), Cochin Cock Labour Board vs. Leemamma Samuel and Ors. (11), U.P.R.T.C. vs. Pukhraj Singh & Ors. (12) and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P. Pochaiah and Anr. (13), may be referred to.
(10). The salient features of the above authorises may be summarised in the following manner:-
1. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
2. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased.
3. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution.
4. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course.
5. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family.
6. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. Th e object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises.
7. A provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee.
8. An employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds.
(11). Keeping the above settled legal principles in mind, the validity of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 has to be seen.
(12). It may be stated here that Rules of 1996 have been carved out as an exception to the service jurisprudence which mandatorily require that any appointment in public office is to be made in consonance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as any appointment, even on temporary or adhoc basis, if found to be violative of the said provisions of the Constitution, would remain unenforceable being invalid. However, Rules of 1996 have been framed to mitigate the financial hardship of the grieved family which has lost its bread earner, as an exception to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also settled principles of law that an exceptional clause/rule has to be construed strictly. Such type of appointments offered on compassionate ground, in exercise of the powers of these Rules are extra-ordinary appointments given for a specific purpose. Since the above Rules revealed the policy of the State Government, this Court should not interfere and direct to give appointment to other son or unmarried daughter of the deceased Government employee and confine itself to the interrelation of the Rules. The Rules of 1996 take care of all problems by making it free that widow of the deceased employee can apply for job and the condition that one of her sons or unmarried daughters is in service of the Government/Corporation etc. would not make her ineligible.
(13). We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that mere exemption in favour of the widow may not serve purpose as she may not be of a proper or eligible age and may not possess the requisite qualification for the post, for the reason that Rule - 6 clearly stipulates that recruitment will be for subordinate/ministerial services or Class IV service as per the qualification of the applicant.
(14). In our considered opinion, Rule-5 of the Rules of 1996 where a provision has been made for compassionate appointments that in case 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, cannot be regarded as invalid. It serves the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 have been framed. No doubt, in some cases hardship may accrue, but it is not a determining factor for examining the constitutional validity of the Rules. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that Rule-5 of the Rules of 1996 is valid and serves the purpose for which Rules of 1996 have been enacted.
(15). Coming to the facts of the present case, it can be said that the wife of the deceased was in employment, therefore, if the application of the appellant-petitioner for providing compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents, they have committed no wrong and the writ petition was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.3.1999. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, this special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(2) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (DR. (J) No. 846.99).
(16). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3529/98 before this Court on 23.9.1998 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father Banwari Lal was working as Class-IV employee with the respondent No. 2 (Municipal Council, Gangana-gar) and Banwarilal died while in service on 17.2.1998. After the death of his father, the appellant-petitioner moved an application for giving him appointment under the Rules of 1996. The appellant-petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that his elder brother Ved Prakash, though living separately for the last many years, is in employment with the Urban Improvement Trust, Ganganagar. However, the application of the appellant- petitioner was not considered by the respondents and, therefore, he has filed the said writ petition praying inter-alia that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the appellant- petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 be declared ultra- vires and be struck down. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 18.3.1999 holding inter-alia that rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is a valid one. Aggrieved from the said order dated 18.3.1999 of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant- petitioner.
(17). For the reasons given in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99, this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(3) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 81/99 (18). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3638/98 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father Pukhraj was working as Constable at Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali and Pukhraj died on 17.2.1995 white on duty and at the time of death of his father, appellant-petitioner was minor and there was nobody to support bereaved family, which was living in hardness. The appellant-petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the prescribed Proforma on 18.8.1998 and on 10.9.1998, the respondent No. 4 (District Superintendent of Police, Pali) informed the appellant petitioner that he cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground as there is no provision to keep the matters of appointment pending till the date of attaining majority, as such the application of the appellant-petitioner for appointment as LDC, Constable on compassionate ground stands rejected and the copy of the order dated 10.9.1998 is marked as Annex.4. Aggrieved from the said order dated 10.9.1998, the appellant-petitioner has filed the said writ petition inter-alia challenging the validity of the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996.
(19). In the writ petition, it was contended by the appellant- petitioner that Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 should be declared ultra vires as it cannot be expected from the member of a bereaved family much less the minor like the present appellant-petitioner to approach the concerned authority within 45 days of the death and apart from this, when the person concerned is a minor, he should be allowed to apply within 45 days after attaining the age of majority and thus, Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was further contended that at the time of death of the father of the appellant-petitioner i.e. on 17.2.1995, the appellant-petitioner was minor, as such, he could not apply for appointment under the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying White in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975') and as soon as he attained the age of majority, he moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected vide order dated 10.9.1998 (Annex. 4). It was further contended that the case of the appellant-petitioner should have been governed by the Rules of 1975 as on the date of death of his father, Rules of 1996 were not in existence and in Rules of 1975, provision as contained in Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996, was not there and thus, from this point of view also, appellant-petitioner should have been given the appointment under the Rules of 1975 or in case Rules of 1996 would be applicable in the case of appellant-petitioner, Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 should be declared as ultra-vires and void.
(20). The learned Single Judge rejected the above contentions and held that employment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the case of the appellant-petitioner would be governed by the Rules of 1996 and not by the Rules of 1975 and thus, he rejected the writ petition vide order dated 4.12.1998.
(21). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.12.1998, the present special appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.
(22). In this special appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 contending that it is unreasonable, unconstitutional and arbitrary.
(23). Before appreciating the contention, it would be appropriate to quote here Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996:-
"10. Procedure :-
(1)......
(2)......
(3) Such application shall be made in the proforma attached as Annex. 'A' to the Head of the Department within a period of 45 days from the date of death of the deceased Government servant. The applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly income (from all sources) mentioned of the entire family members in Column Number 7 of the prescribed application."
(24). The above Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 was amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 19.4.1999, which was published in Raj. Gaz. Ex. Ordi. 4(Ga)(1) Dt. 21.4.1999 Page 19(4). The amended Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:-
"(3). Such application be made in the proforma attached as 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 Number 7 of the prescribed application provided that where the spouse does not seek appointment for herself/himself and even the eldest of remaining dependants 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 Government Servant), the above period of limitation shall run from the date of attaining the age of 18 years by such eldest dependant."
(25). From the above amendment, it appears that period of submitting the application has been fixed as three months instead of 45 days as it was found in the original clause.
(26). It was brought to our notice that a learned Single Judge of this court in Mancha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (14), (decided on 19.4.2000) at Jodhpur has struck down the amended clause (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 to the extent of making available compassionate employment to a dependant whenever he attains majority, being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge in that case held that if the eldest dependant attains the age of 18 years after an inordinate delay from the death of the employee, offering appointment to him at such a belated stage would not serve the purpose of granting immediate financial relief to redeem the grieved family from financial constraints.
(27). As quashing the part of Rule 10(3) as stood amended is not under challenge before us, it is not desirable to enter into that arena. But, the position as it stands today is that the said Clause to the extent of making available compassionate employment to a dependant after he attains majority has been struck down and the only right which is available to the dependant is that he can move application for appointment on compassionate ground within three months' from the date of death of the Government servant. We are examining the validity of the said Clause from the point of view whether the bar of three months is sustainable or not.
(28). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the point in question in a recent decision in Sanjay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (15), where the following observations have been made:-
"Government Service-Compassionate employment-Death of Government servant-petitioner son was ten years old at the time of death-Rejection of application made by petitioner for compassionate employment - Validity. Held. When petitioner made the application, he being minor, was not eligible for such employment. There can be no reservation of a vacancy till such time the minor becomes a major after a number of years. Basis of compassionate employment is to give immediate relief to the family of deceased. Rejection of application therefore, valid and proper."
(29). From the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), it becomes clear that there can be no reservation till such lime the minor becomes a major after a number of years. The basis of compassionate employment is to give immediate relief to the family of deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the application of the petitioner in that case by the Department was valid and proper.
(30). Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we reach to the irresistible conclusion that if the application of the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 10.9.1998 (Annex.4) on the ground that compassionate appointment cannot be given to him as there is no provision to keep the matter of appointment pending till the date of attaining majority, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in doing so.
(31). The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner that providing of only three months lime to a dependant to move an application for compassionate appointment from the date of death of Government servant is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is wholly untenable. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the immediate hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises and in case the financial condition of the family of deceased employee is good, such appointment can be refused.
(32). In our considered opinion, the clause (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 to the extent of providing that a dependant can move an application for appointment on compassionale ground within three months from the date of death of Government Servant, cannot be regarded as invalid. It serves the purpose for which the Rules of 1996 have been enacted.
(33). Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be confirmed and approved.
(34). Another question to be considered is whether in the present case Rules of 1975 would be applicable or not.
(35). No doubt, in this case, father of the appellant-petitioner died on 17.2.1995 and on that day, Rules of 1975 were in force. However, the appellant-petitioner applied for appointment on compassionale ground on 18.8.1998 and on that day, Rules of 1996 came into existence and Rules of 1975 were repealed and after perusing Rule 11 of the Rules of 1996, it appears that Rules of 1996 shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these Rules. Thus, from all point of view, the case of the present appellant-petitioner shall be governed by the Rules of 1996 and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that no right had accrued in favour of the appellant-petitioner under the Rules of 1975. Moreso, in such a case, application is to be decided as per the law applicable on the day of decision for the reasons that mere pendency of an application does not create any legal right in favour of applicant.
(36). Before concluding the above point in question, a question has arisen in our mind whether on equitable grounds, period of three months can be extended or not.
(37). What is meant by the word 'equitable' in administrative justice, this has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madamanchi Ramappa and Anr vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa (16), in the following manner:-
"but on such occasions it is necessary to remember that what is administered in Courts is justice according to law and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law."
(38). Thus, equity cannot be treated as above against the express provisions of law.
(39). Similarly, in P. K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (17), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Equity cannot be basis for extending the period of limitation. It was further held that:-
"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
(40). Thus, the question which has arisen in our mind stands answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in such case period of limitation cannot be extended even on equitable grounds.
(41). For the reasons stated above, we do not find any good or valid ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, this special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(4). D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 533/2000 (42). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4325/99 before this Court on 23.10.1999 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father Ram Nath Dhorya was working with the respondent-Department on the post of B.H.S. at Community Health Centre Maridiya and Ram Nath Dhorya died, while in service on 18.8.1996. After the death of his father, the appellant- petitioner moved an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. But, the respondent No. 4 (The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Headquarter Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh) vide order dated 12.4.1999 (Annex.6) rejected the application of the appellant-petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment stating inter-alia that since three unmarried daughters of the deceased Government employee are already in Government Service, therefore, appointment cannot be given to the appellant-petitioner on compassionate ground. Aggrieved from the said order dated 12.4.1999 (Annex.6), the appellant-petitioner filed the said writ petition. The appellant- petitioner challenged the said order on two grounds; (i) that since the father of the appellant-petitioner died on 18.8.1996 and on that day. Rules of 1975 were applicable, therefore, Rules of 1996 would not be applicable to his case; and (ii) that in case the Rues of 1996 are applicable to his case,\ Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 should be declared invalid. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant- petitioner vide order dated 25.4.2000 relying on the earlier decision in Jaya Bhaduri vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (18), which is under challenge in Special Appeal No. 986/99. Aggrieved from the said order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.
(43). The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra) has been upheld by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99. Therefore, for the reasons given in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 81/99, this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(5) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 899/99 (44). The appellants-petitioners filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 847/99 before this Court on 16.3.1999 stating inter-alia that Devi Singh, husband of the appellant-petitioner no. 1 Smt. Dharmi Kanwar was working as Teacher Gr. III in the Department of Education and Devi Singh died while in service on 13.4.1998. He was survived by his wife Smt. Dharmi Kanwar, appellant-petitioner No. 1 and sons Manohar Singh, Karan Singh (Appellant-petitioner No. 2) and Rajendra Singh. After the death of Devi Singh, appellant-petitioner No. 1 moved an application before the respondents for giving appointment on compassionate ground to appellant-petitioner No. 2. But, the said application of the appellant-petitioner No. 1 for giving appointment on compassionate ground to appellant-petitioner No. 2 was rejected by the respondents on 17.12.1998 (Annex. 5) stating inter-alia that since Manohar Singh Rathore, another son of deceased government employee is in Government Service as Teacher, therefore, no appointment on compassionate ground can be given to the appellant-petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved from the said order dated 17.12.1998 (Annex.5), the said writ petition was filed by the appellants-petitioners before this Court. The appellant- petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The said writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.4.1999 holding that the case is squarely covered by the judgment in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.1999, the present special appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioners.
(45). Since the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra) has been upheld by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99, therefore, on the same reasoning, this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(6) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 563/2000 (46). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 864/2000 before this Court on 25.3.2000 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's mother Smt. Bidamidevi was class IV employee in the Ayurveda Department and at the time of her death, she was posted in Ayurveda Hospital, Nagaur. She died while in service on 31.3.1997. After the death of his mother, appellant- petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996. The said application was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 17.12.1999 (Annex.P/4) slating inter-alia that as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground as elder brother of the appellant-petitioner is already working as Class IV employee in Ayurveda Department and other brother of the appellant-petitioner is working in Gramin Bank. Aggrieved from the said order dated 17.12.1999 (Annex.P/4), the appellant-petitioner filed that said writ petition before this Court. The appellant-petitioner also challenged the validity of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The said writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.5.2000 relying on the earlier decision in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.5.2000, the present special appeal has been filed by the appellant- petitioner.
(47). Since the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra) has been upheld by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99, therefore, on the same reasoning, this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(7) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 445/99 (48). The appellant petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 32/99 before this Court on 5.1.1999 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's mother Smt. Ishwari Devi was working as a Teacher in the Government Girls Upper Primary School, Phaiasiya (Jhadol) District Udaipur and she died on 16.10.1984 while in service. At the time of death of his mother, appellant-petitioner was about 9 years of age and after attaining majority, appellant petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1997 for providing appointment on compassionate ground. On the said application, the respondent No. 3 (The District Education Officer (Girls Institution), Education Department, Udaipur) issued order dated 8.10.1997 (Annex. 10) informing the appellant-petitioner that as per Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996, application for compassionate appointment should have been made within 45 days from the date of death of the deceased Government servant and since the case of the appellant-petitioner is received on 4.2.1997, therefore, his case cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and thus, the application of the appellant-petitioner for compassionate appointment stands rejected. Aggrieved from the said order dated 8.10.1997 (Annex. 10), the appellant-petitioner has filed the said writ petition before this Court. The said order dated 8.10.1997 (annex. 10) was challenged on two grounds; (i) that since mother of the appellant-petitioner died on 16.10.1984 and on that day, Rules of 1975 were in force, therefore, in the present case, Rules of 1996 would not be applicable; and (ii) in case Rules of 1996 are applicable, Rule 10(3) be declared invalid. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned single Judge vide order dated 8th January, 1999 holding inter-alia that employment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and no right had accrued in favour of the appellant-petitioner under the Rules of 1975. Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th January, 1999, the present special appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.
(49). For the reasons given In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 81/99, this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(8) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 830/2000 (50). The appellant-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1475/2000 before this Court on 11.5.2000 stating inter-alia that appellant-petitioner's father Ummed Raj Golechha was working on the post of UDC in Sub Division - 20 of Public Health and Engineering Department, Jodhpur and he died while in service on 18.1.1998. At the lime of death, deceased had two sons and two daughters and while the two daughters were married, the other son Vinod Gulechha was living separately with his own family and he was appointed in the PHED by regular process of selection way back in 1990. After the death of his father, the appellant- petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The respondent No. 2 (Chief Engineer (Rural), PHED, Jaipur) vide order dated 25.8.1999 (Annex. 7) appointed appellant-petitioner as class IV employee. Thereafter, appellant-petitioner joined the service. The case of the appellant-petitioner was that while he was working to the satisfaction of the respondents as Class IV employees, he all of a sudden received order dated 14.3.2000 (Annex. 12) issued by respondent No. 2, by which, services of the appellant-petitioner were brought to an end by cancelling the appointment order dated 25.8.1999 (Annex.7) stating inter-alia that since appellant-petitioner's brother was already in Government employment, therefore, services of the appellant-petitioner were terminated under the garb of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. Aggrieved from the said order dated 14.3.2000 (Annex.12), the appellant-petitioner filed the said writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition of the appellant petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 3.7.2000 holding inter-alia that termination of services of the appellant- petitioner was a rectification of a mistake on coming to know that the appellant-petitioner had been appointed in violation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 and the validity of the said Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 has been upheld in Jaya Bhaduri's case (supra). Aggrieved from the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2000, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.
(51). Since the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jaya Bhaduri's case has been upheld by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 986/99, therefore, on the same reasoning, the special appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Conclusion (52). Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that the concerned authority before giving appointment on compassionate ground must see and examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and such appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress in a deserving case.
(53). In the result, all the above eight special appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.