Allowed

Anita Payala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2018CW/5194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her father's death in 1996, three years after attaining majority. The court rejected the respondent's stand that delay bars the claim and relied on its own precedent to allow appointment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within three months.

Anita Payala Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 5194/2018

¶3

Anita Payala D/o Late Shri Misa Ram, aged about 21 years, Resident Of Village Jawali, Post Ren, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affair, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Rajasthan Police, District Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Head Quarter, Rajasthan Police, District Jaipur.

¶9

The Commandant 9^th Battalion R.A.C., Tonk.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Sukh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweta Bora for Mr. Anil Bissa

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

07/08/2018

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under

¶16

Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

¶17

“(a) The Annexure-P/14 dated 16.03.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶18

(b) The petitioner may kindly be appointed on suitable post according to petitioner’s qualification on the ground of compassionate as per rule and in consequence of it all service benefits may kindly be allowed to petitioner.

(2 of 6)

[CW-5194/2018]

(d) it is also prayed that considering the family and financial condition of petitioner, the petition may kindly be heard as earlier as possible.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner’s father Late Shri Misa Ram S/o Shri Bhanwara Ram, resident of Village Jawali, Post Ren, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur got appointment in the respondent department. The petitioner’s father died in an accident on 16.08.1996. The petitioner’s age, at that time, was 7 months as the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.01.1996. The petitioner did her Graduation in Science. The petitioner belongs to OBC Category and is unmarried and her mother was solely dependent upon her late father.

¶24

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her attaining the age of majority. The petitioner’s mother gave her consent to such compassionate appointment. In the process of considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the respondents vide letter dated 20.09.2017, sought certain documents from the petitioner. On 29.09.2017, another letter was sent by the respondents seeking original documents from the petitioner. The petitioner sent her original documents and the petitioner was asked to undergo physical test for being considered for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 18.12.2017. The physical test was conducted and the petitioner was found to be fit by the Board for such appointment. Thereafter, on 02.02.2018, the respondent No.3 sent a letter to the respondent No.1 for relaxation in delay caused in seeking compassionate appointment with all documents and the proceedings conducted till that date. However, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide letter dated 16.03.2018.

¶25

(3 of 6)

¶26

[CW-5194/2018]

¶27

The only ground for rejection of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment by the respondents is that the petitioner, even after attaining the age of majority, has moved the application for compassionate appointment after a delay of 03 years 02 months and 28 days, and therefore, she cannot be given compassionate appointment.

¶28

For ready reference, the aforementioned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the respondents, reads as under:

¶29

“mijksDr fo’k;kUrxZr Loa Jh feLlkjke] Hkw-iw- dkfu0&301] uoha cVkfy;u vkj,lh Vksad dh vkfJrk iq=h lqJh vfurk ik;yk dk ewy izdj.k ykSVkdj ys[k gS fd Loa Jh feLlkjke dh e`R;q fnukad 16-08-1996 dks gqbZA vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr gsrq mudh vkfJrk iq=h lqJh vfurk ik;yk }kjk fnukad 08-11-2017 dks vkosnu fd;k x;k gSA ;fn ;g Hkh eku fy;k tkos fd vkfJrk ds ckfyx gksus ds mijkar vkosnu djuk laHko Fkk] rks Hkh lqJh vfurk ik;yk dh tUe frfFk 06-01-1996 gS ftlds vuqlkj ckfyx gksus ds Hkh 03 o"kZ 02 ekg 28 fnu i'pkr~ vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gSA

¶30

vr% e`rd vkfJrk vfurk ik;yk ds foyEc vof/k esa f'kfFkyu iznku djus lacaf/kr izdj.k eas dkfeZd foHkkx dh vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 169 fnukad 13-3-18 }kjk izdj.k ds ijh{k.kksijkUr lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd vkosfndk }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus esa gqbZ vl/kkj.k foyEc dh vof/k esa f’kfFkyu dk izLrko Lohdkj ;ksX; ugah ik;k x;k gSA”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of her father, and as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996), the petitioner was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment on becoming major, and since the respondents themselves were of the opinion that the compassionate appointment could be granted, therefore, they

¶32

(4 of 6)

¶33

[CW-5194/2018]

¶34

processed her case, which included getting her physical test done and seeking documents from the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the delay of 3 years after becoming major is not intentional and the petitioner is a major girl and comes within the definition of dependent under the Rules of 1996, and therefore, she is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in The Managing Director, Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vs. Prashant Soni & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1136/2015 , the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

¶37

“The main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that the date on which the application was submitted by the respondent, a dependent member of deceased employee, i.e. 17.09.2008, he was underage and not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment and under the scheme of Rules, one has to be of 18 years and the application is to be submitted within three months of the alleged death of the bread winner and accordingly, when he was underage on the date of submission of the application, no error was committed by the authority in rejecting his application while considering his case for compassionate appointment, as prayed for.

¶38

Although, the ld.Single Judge rejected the contentions advanced under order impugned, but we do find no substance in the submissions made for the reason that one is supposed to be within the age, which is one of the condition of eligibility in seeking employment but that is one of the factor which is always to be kept in mind when someone is coming forward to seek public employment by adopting a due process and mechanism provided by law making selections from open market but in the instant case, no one is made aware in advance as to when their bread winner will lose to provide economic assistance to the family and these are incidents which happen untimely with the family and the Government has come with the object to do away with the conditions of eligibility and provide employment to the dependent member of the indigent family by providing them social protection.

¶39

Indisputably, in the instant case, when the application came to be considered & rejected by the authority, the

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[CW-5194/2018]

¶42

dependent member had attained the minimum age prescribed under the Rules but it appears that the authority stood back on the date of submission of the application and in our considered view, these are all technical issues only to deny legitimate right of the dependent member of the deceased employee who is otherwise eligible to seek compassionate appointment and in our considered view, on the crucial day when his application was considered by the authority, his eligibility to hold the post was to be considered and his application could not have been rejected on these technical grounds holding him ineligible because of underage on the date of submission of the application and this test is always to be looked into only when someone comes forward from open market and not while seeking compassionate appointment and this what the ld.Single Judge has considered at length in the order impugned dt.28.10.2015.

¶43

After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference.

¶44

The special appeal is wholly without substance, stands dismissed. However, we direct the concerned authorities to comply with the order passed by the ld.Single Judge dt.28.10.2015 and consider the case of the respondent-Prashant Soni for compassionate appointment for the post, he is eligible under the Rules within a period of one month from today. As a consequence whereof the misc. application stands disposed of.”

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the compassionate appointment is to be given to the dependent of the deceased government servant to tide over the immediate financial crisis occurred due to death of the breadearner of the family, and the very purpose and legislative intention of the Rules framed for such appointment, will stand defeated, if in this case, the compassionate appointment is granted after such delay.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the father of the petitioner had expired long back in 1996 and therefore, no appointment can be granted at this belated stage, and even if the petitioner was to be considered for such appointment, then she should have approached the respondents at least when she became major.

¶47

(6 of 6)

¶48

[CW-5194/2018]

¶49

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that there is no bar in the Rules for giving compassionate appointment to the dependents, who are minor at the time of death of the employee, and the respondents have been taking a stand that upon attaining majority, the consideration for compassionate appointment could be made.

¶50

This Court also finds that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, in the aforequoted judgment, has also permitted such candidates to be given compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the only claimant and is natural daughter of the deceased employee, and thus, falling within the definition of dependent in accordance with the Rules of 1996.

¶51

It is needless to say that the mother, the other dependent has already forsaken the claim for compassionate appointment and has given her consent for such appointment to be given to the petitioner.

¶52

In light of aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, strictly in accordance with law.

¶53

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶54

/zeeshan/

Anita Payala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Payala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Devi Vs the Chairman

Vikas Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

M/S. Veer Prabhu Marketing Vs Sun Moon Printers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Gaj Singh Mehta Vs State and Ors.

Om Singh Vs Dhirendra Singh and Ors.

Shiva Nand Vs Civil Court NO.3, Jodhpur and Anr.