Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satish Mohanpuria vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18179) on 26 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:18179]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21730/2024
Satish Mohanpuria S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Mohanpuria,
Aged About 21 Years, R/o Regar Basti, Ward No.2, Ambedkar
Colony, Deeppura Road, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical
Health And Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Director (Nursing), Medical Health And Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
5. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Kuchaman City, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave - Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral) 26/03/2025
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of impugned order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure-18), vide which his application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. He also seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to give compassionate appointment owing to death of his father while working in service.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner's father, who was employed as a Ward Boy in the Block Chief Medical Officer (BCMO), passed away on 30.06.2015. (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:24:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18179] (2 of 4) [CW-21730/2024] 2.1. Before the death of petitioner's father, the marriage of his father was also dissolved by way of judgment & decree dated 17.06.2014 passed by Judge Family Court, Merta, District Nagaur. 2.2. The petitioner, though was minor at the time of death of his father, submitted an application, along with the required documents, for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.08.2015.
2.3. The said application was not considered on the ground that petitioner was only 11 years' old at the time of death of his father and as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 2.4. The petitioner immediately after attaining the age of majority, again filed an application seeking compassionate appointment before the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur. 2.5. Vide letter dated 26.02.2024 the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that compassionate appointment is to be granted immediately after death of the employee to provide assistance to his family. Hence, this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on judgment rendered in Manchha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1, decided on 19.04.2000, relevant part of which, is reproduced as under:-
"(30). Thus, in view of the above, as the very purpose of compassionate employment is to redeem the family from immediate financial hardship, the amendment contained in Clause (3) of rule 10 to make it available to a dependant whenever he attains majority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law being violative of the provisions 1 2000 (2) WLN 267 (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:24:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18179] (3 of 4) [CW-21730/2024] of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It opens a made of employment by succession which is not permissible in law. 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 constrains.
Therefore, the said clause, being ultra-vires, is struck down. However, it is clarified that the judgment shall not have any bearing on the appointments already made under the Rules and it will have a prospective effect. Even in case of the petitioner if he had already been appointed on compassionate ground, it is not desirable to disturb him."
5. As against the above, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Parmeshwar Kumar Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2, decided on 19.09.2015 seems to be misplaced.
6. The said judgment was rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case therein, wherein it was held that provision for providing compassionate appointment in given cases can be invoked on a minor dependent attaining majority. Present is not a case of such type so as to accord any benefit to the petitioner at this belated stage since the applicable policy governing the compassionate appointment has no such saving clause.
7. Furthermore, my sentiments are also supported by a Division Bench judgment rendered by this court in Gopal Singh Chouhan Vs. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr. 3 relevant of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"10. Indisputably, the appointment on compassionate ground to the dependents of deceased High Court employee is governed by the Rules of 1996. As per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996, a person seeking compassionate appointment must have attained 18 years of age at the time of making the application. The time limit prescribed for making the application under Rule 10(3) is 90 days from the death of the employee. Admittedly, as on the date of making application, the petitioner being of the age of 13 years and8 months was not eligible for appointment. The mother of the petitioner who could have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 specifically declined to accept the appointment on 2 2005 (4) WLC 512 3 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11892/2018, decided on 24.07.2019 (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:24:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18179] (4 of 4) [CW-21730/2024] compassionate ground and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when there was nobody in the family of the deceased employee who could be offered appointment, the respondents were justified in rejecting the application which could not have been kept pending till the petitioner attains the age of majority. It is pertinent to note that the Rules of 1996 does not make entitle the member of the family of the deceased employee to make an application at the later stage when he attains the age of majority. As a matter off act, prior to framing of the Rules of 1996, the appointment on compassionate ground was governed by Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service) Rules, 1975, there was a specific provision incorporated whereunder the dependent if he was minor at the time of death of the government servant, was entitled to make an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of majority. The Rules of 1975 stands repealed by virtue of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1996, however, no such provision is incorporated therein. Thus, the intention of the rule making authority is very clear and therefore, under the Rules of 1996, the dependent of the government servant cannot claim deferred consideration on his attaining the age of majority.
11. to 16. xxx xxx xxx
17. Thus, it is settled law that the appointment on compassionate ground dehors the relevant recruitment rules is offered to the dependent of deceased government servant to tide over the sudden crisis which arises on account of sad demise of breadwinner of the family, therefore, no one can claim the appointment on compassionate ground at any time in future after the crisis period is over.
18. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner's father had died in the year 2010 when the petitioner was only 13 years and 8 months of age. By this time, the petitioner has attained the age of about 23 years, therefore, at this belated stage, when the crisis period is already over, the question of petitioner being accorded appointment on compassionate ground does not arise. Such consideration at this belated stage would be against the very object and spirit of the scheme of compassionate appointment underlying the Rules of 1996."
8. As an upshot, no grounds to interfere.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 162-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 09:24:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)