Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Usha Rajawat And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 25 February, 2013
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.1748/2011 (Smt.Usha Rajawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 25th February, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.R.P.Garg, for the petitioner/s. Mr.M.F.Baig, Dy.GC. BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, manifolds prayers have been made. First prayer is to set aside the order at Annex.3 dated 04.10.2010 whereby service of the erstwhile government servant was terminated from retrospective date. The other prayers are consequential to the aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that erstwhile government servant Ranveer Singh was convicted for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 346 and 448 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) vide order dated 26.08.2006. An appeal against the order of conviction has been maintained and was pending before this Court till his death on 04.10.2010. Mr.Ranveer Singh died at 7.00 AM on 04.10.2010 and soon thereafter, the impugned order of termination was passed on the same day but after the death of Mr.Ranveer Singh. The impugned order of termination is thus against the dead person, hence, not tenable in the eye of law. This is moreso when, late Ranveer Singh was paid subsistence allowance during intervening period till the impugned order of termination. The rate of subsistence allowance was enhanced to 75 percent of the salary but surprisingly his services have been terminated from retrospective date ignoring payment of subsistence allowance and continuance. An order of termination cannot be applied retrospective. The respondent/s accordingly denied consequential benefits of GPF, Gratuity, Family Pension, State Insurance and compassionate appointment etc. Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand submits that Ranveer Singh was terminated from service looking to his conviction. Mere pendency of appeal does not bar passing order of termination unless it is reversed by the Appellate Court. The respondents were within their jurisdiction to terminate service of late Ranveer Singh based on conviction. In the background aforesaid, there is no illegality in passing order at Annex.3 dated 04.10.2010.
So far as compassionate appointment and other benefits are concerned, the petitioners are not entitled due to termination of erstwhile government servant and otherwise application for compassionate appointment has not been given.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts which are not in dispute that late Ranveer Singh was convicted vide order dated 25th August, 2006. The appeal was preferred and pending before his death on 04.10.2010. It is also not in dispute that immediately on the death, the order of termination was passed. Late Ranveer Singh died at 7.00 AM on 04.10.2010 and termination order was passed thereafter on the same day. In view of above, it becomes clear that termination order was passed against a dead person. The aforesaid is not tenable in the eye of law, moreso when, order of conviction was passed in the month of August, 2006, thus nobody prevented respondents to pass the order of termination based on conviction, however, it was not done for more than four years and impugned order was passed on the day when Ranveer Singh died. It shows working style of the Government where they sleep over the matter for years together even after the order of conviction and pass the order of termination when person died. The impugned order at Annex.3 is thus not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, deserves to be set aside. This is moreso when, order of termination is from retrospective date ignoring that intervening period was treated under suspension and subsistence allowance was paid to the erstwhile government servant. How the period treated under suspension can be ignored by the respondent/s. It was nothing but an effort to overcome with the default of respondent/s, who did not pass order of termination immediately after conviction. The retrospective order of termination is not sustainable. For the aforesaid reasons also, the impugned order of termination at Annex.3 deserves to be set aside, hence, it is set aside.
The family of erstwhile government servant would obviously be entitled for the consequential benefits of gratuity, GPF, State Insurance, Family Pension and similar such benefits as a consequence of setting aside the order at Annex.3. Accordingly, required benefits may be extended to the family of erstwhile government servant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The question now comes regarding compassionate appointment.
From the facts narrated in para No.6 of the writ petition, it comes out that an application was submitted for compassionate appointment on 18.10.2010, however, copy thereof is not placed on record to prove it. An oral statement has been made for denial to receive application, however, nothing has been said as to why application was not sent through post if it was not accepted by the respondent/s. This is moreso when, application for compassionate appointment has to be made within period of limitation given under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short Rules of 1996).
I find nothing on record to show an application for compassionate appointment within period of limitation. The para No.6 of the writ petition is only an averment but was required to be substantiated at least by furnishing copy of application said to have been given but not accepted by the respondent/s. Further explanation as to why it was not sent by post, if it was not received by the respondent/s. In absence of aforesaid, it cannot be presumed that application for compassionate appointment was moved by the petitioner within the period of limitation as provided under the Rules of 1996. The reply to para No.6 of the writ petition has been given in unspecific terms but then petitioner was under obligation to first substantiate facts narrated in the writ petition, moreso when, an application said to have been submitted was in writing but not filed along with the writ petition and further explanation does not exist as to why it was not sent by post if was not accepted by the respondents.
In the background aforesaid, I do not find a case for compassionate appointment so as to grant relief. Accordingly, direction for compassionate appointment cannot be granted when application was not submitted within limitation.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition so as the stay application are disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.116 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