Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8390 / 2014
Suresh Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Prajapati B/c Kumhar,
Aged About 24 Years, Pratap Nagar, Mandal, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government,
Cooperative Department, Governent of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Governmnet of Rajasthan, Sahakar
Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation
Ltd. (SPINFID), Nethru Sahakar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Chairman & Managing Director.
4. General Manager, Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning
Mills Federation Ltd., Unit Gangapur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma Mr. Satyendra Meena, for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Dy. Govt. Counsel _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Order 28/04/2017 Instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the petitioner be granted compassionate appointment upon death of his father, namely Kanhaiya Lal.
Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in year, 2007, a decade had passed.
The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition (2 of 3) [CW-8390/2014] No.8202/2013) decided on 17.09.2015, relying upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court held that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right and it is to be granted to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis immediately upon tradgey which had fallen on the family.
It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion from the judgment of Rakesh Kumar (supra)_ :--
"11. From a survey of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed out hereinabove, it is evident that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right. The very object is to relieve the family of unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused by the sudden demise of the bread-winner of the family in order to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The object is not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee does not entitle a family for compassionate appointment. The authorities concerned are obliged to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis then a job is to be offered. The claim for compassionate appointment after a long lapse of reasonable period would defeat the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness. An appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the recruitment regarding appointment being made on open invitation of application on merits. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution."
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Unit where the father of the petitioner was working has already been closed, as per the decision taken by the State Cabinet.
(3 of 3) [CW-8390/2014] Taking into account the fact that the father of the petitioner died a decade ago, along with the observations made by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), no ground is made out to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner, especially when the Unit itself has closed, in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Cabinet.
Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. ashok