Allowed

Nitesh Harijan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2021CW/10553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a son of a deceased government employee, was denied compassionate appointment due to a pending criminal trial. The High Court held that since the offences were trivial and committed when he was young, the denial was unsustainable. The court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to consider the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting compassionate appointment was quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds expeditiously.

Nitesh Harijan Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10553/2020

¶3

Nitesh Harijan S/o Ram Swaroop Harijan, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Guwariya Basti, Paladi Road, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Municipal Council Bhilwara, Through The Commissioner.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Solanki through VC.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Parihar through VC.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Order

¶12

07/01/2021

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-5), whereby, the respondents have denied compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of pendency of a criminal case against him.

¶14

The petitioner on account of death of his mother sought compassionate appointment. During the course of police verification, it was indicated that for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C., trial was pending against the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner submitted an affidavit with the respondents that as the petitioner has not been convicted, in case, ultimately he is found guilty, the respondents can take appropriate action against him.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-10553/2020]

¶18

However, by order impugned dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure5), it was held that in terms of circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by the State, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner, for which he is otherwise eligible, only on account of pendency of a criminal case, is not justified.

¶20

Submissions have been made that the matter was pending before the criminal Court since the year 2014, when the petitioner was only 19 years of age and that the offence only pertains to a motor vehicle accident, which does not involve any kind of moral turpitude and, therefore, the action of the respondents in holding him ineligible for appointment / denying appointment on account of such pending trial is not justified.

¶21

Reliance was placed on Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar : (2011) 4 SCC 644.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the order impugned has been passed relying on a circular issued by the State dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure-R/1), which clearly provides that even in cases where the trial is pending against a candidate, he would not be entitled for consideration for appointment and, therefore, the petitioner has been rightly held ineligible.

¶23

Further submissions have been made, that the validity of circular has not been questioned by the petitioner and on that ground also, petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CW-10553/2020]

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner has been held ineligible only on account of pendency of criminal case. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner is undergoing trial for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, which offence apparently does not involve any kind of moral turpitude.

¶28

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), taking into consideration various aspects, inter alia laid down that during pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in the circumstances of the case, may appoint a candidate subject to the decision of such case.

¶29

Similarly, in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the incident had happened when the petitioner therein was 20 years of age and, therefore, the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminal for the rest of their lives.

¶30

In the present case also the alleged offence happened at the age of 19 in the year 2014, for which, the trial is still pending.

¶31

In view thereof, the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible only on account of pending trial for offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC, cannot be sustained.

¶32

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the petitioner not questioning the validity of the circular, based on which, the petitioner has held ineligible is concerned, the circular is based on law as it existed in 2016, however, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the said circular to the extent, as noticed, has lost its efficacy.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-10553/2020]

¶35

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, expeditiously.

¶36

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶37

14-Sachin/-

Nitesh Harijan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Harijan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nain Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

National Highway Authority of India Vs M/S P.L.L.- P.C.L. Jv

Narendra Sen Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharda Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakha Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shravan Singh Sodha Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.