This special appeal against a single bench order dismissing a writ petition for compassionate appointment was dismissed. The bench observed that the petitioner, a widowed daughter-in-law, applied after a lapse of about ten years, at which stage the need for immediate financial assistance no longer exists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.142/2015 (SUMAN SHARMA V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ) ***
DATE OF ORDER
27.04.2015
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE MISS JAISHREE THAKUR ,J
Mr.Kuldeep Mathur for the appellant.
By the judgment impugned dated 29.01.2015, the learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the petitioner to have appointment on compassionate grounds.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellantpetitioner claimed appointment as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant, Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') claiming herself a dependent of Shri Heera Lal who died while in service on 15.12.2005. At the first instance, her claim for appointment was denied on 18.08.2006 on the count that as per the Rules of 1996, daughter in law does not fall under the category of dependents mentioned under Rule 2 (c) of the rules. She preferred an application afresh in the year 2014 with the assertion that after the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Pinky V/s State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9177/2010) decided on 12.09.2011, a widowed daughter in law is a dependent of government servant as defined under Rule 2 (c) of
2
the Rules of 1996, hence appointment should have been given to her. The respondents dismissed the representation again by not treating her a dependent of the deceased government servant.
The learned Single Bench without examining merits of the decision of the respondents refused to interfere in the matter on the count that no appointment on compassionate grounds should be given after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of death of the government servant. While doing so, the learned Single Bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. V/s Paras Nath reported in 1998 (2) SCC 412.
In the case aforesaid, it was held that appointment on compassionate ground may be given to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness and that is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The appointment on compassionate grounds is also permissible to alleviate the distress of the family with a view to provide immediate financial assistance. The need of such appointment does not exist after a huge lapse of time.
In the case in hand, appointment is claimed by the petitioner after a lapse of about ten years from the date of death of her father in law and at this stage, the considerations referred above, in normal
3
course does not exist. The impugned judgment for the reasons given above in our opinion does not require any interference.
The appeal hence, is dismissed.
[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.
Anil Singh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the single bench was correct in refusing compassionate appointment to a widowed daughter-in-law who applied after a lapse of more than ten years from the date of the deceased employee's death.
Whether the delay of over ten years negates the necessity for immediate financial assistance as the principle held in previous precedents.
Whether the impugned judgment requires interference by this appellate bench.
Suman Sharma
State of Rajasthan
GOVIND MATUR
JAISHREE THAKUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
