Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lalit Mohan vs Md, Rsrtc, Jaipur on 13 December, 2011
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7881/2006 (Lalit Mohan Versus Managing Director, RSRTC & Ors.) Date of Order :: 13th December, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Sanjay Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.J.K.Singhi, Sr.Adv. With Mr.Tarun Kumar Verma, for the respondent/s. By the Court:
The issue involved in the present matter is as to whether the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the Rules of 1996) can be applied to the matter where death took place prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1996. The erstwhile government servant died in the year 1994 and at that time, petitioner was minor but on attaining the age of majority, he made an application after coming into force of the Rules of 1996. The application was rejected on the ground of delay, inasmuch as, Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 provides 90 days' period to make application for compassionate appointment and herein, the delay is almost of eight years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for minor, the Rules of 1996 were amended to provide limitation for making application from the date they attend the age of majority and accordingly, said Rule should be applied to the present matter also or in alternate, when the erstwhile government servant died in the year 1994, earlier Rules of 1975 should be applied.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record of the case.
The issues raised herein have already been settled by this Court. The right of minor for making application after attaining the age of majority is concerned, the amendment in the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 has already been held to be ultravires in the case of Mancha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLR 2001 (1) 433. A reference of judgments in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Anr. reported in 2004(12) SCC 487 and in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. Vs. K.R.Vishwanath reported in 2005 (7) SCC 206 has also been given.
In the light of the aforesaid, delayed application cannot be entertained and otherwise, very purpose to seek compassionate appointment is lost in such cases, as delay is fetal to seek compassionate appointment.
So far as the second issue regarding application of Rules of 1975 is concerned, the aforesaid issue has also been dealt with by this Court in the case of Board of Revenue Vs. Rajendra reported in 2001 (1) RLR 500, wherein it was held that once Rules are repealed, it cannot be enforced unless specific provision for saving exists on the subsequent rules. Since, no such provision exists to save the application already made, the Rules of 1975 cannot be applied. This is moreso when, in the present matter, the application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2001, i.e., prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1996, thus Rules of 1975 cannot be applied, rather petitioner has rightly been concerned on the Rules of 1996 and looking to the provision of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 and finding it to be a case of gross delay in making application, the respondents have rightly rejected the application.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Item No.83 preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.