Dismissed

Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2021CW/10866/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Bhansali dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for compassionate appointment. The court held that a fatal delay in applying destroys the very purpose of compassionate appointment, and Rule 13 cannot be invoked to relax time limits in such cases.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after a fatal delay was dismissed as it had no substance.

Mahaveer 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. 10866/2020

¶3

Mahaveer S/o Shri Jagdish, aged about 32 Years, By Caste Harijan, Resident of Subhash Nagar, Harijan Basti, Hanuman Road, Rani Khurd, District Pali (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Deputy Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

¶8

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rani, District Pali. ----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Pratistha Dave.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶11

08/11/2021

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’) while treating him as dependent upon deceased Government servant, Smt. Sharda.

¶13

It is inter-alia indicated that the petitioner’s mother was appointed as Safai Karamchari in the year 1992 and continued on the said post till her demise on 24.04.2012. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 29.01.2015 (Annex.1) under the Rules of 1996. It is claimed that the petitioner made several requests since the year 2015 for according him appointment, however, the same was not made to the petitioner.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CW-10866/2020]

¶16

Submissions have been made that though the petitioner on account of delayed application for according appointment is not entitled, however, under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1996, the said requirement can be relaxed by the respondents; and therefore, the respondents be directed to relax the requirement and accord appointment to the petitioner.

¶17

Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, admittedly the application seeking compassionate appointment is delayed beyond the period specified under the Rules of 1996.

¶18

The purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is for the family to tide over the loss of bread earner immediately and the delay in making the application in such cases is fatal.

¶19

In view of above fact situation, the petitioner on account of delay in seeking appointment has no case and the plea that under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1996, that requirement can be relaxed, apparently has no substance, inasmuch as, as noticed the very principle of grant of compassionate appointment in such a case would got diluted.

¶20

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶22

216-DJ/-

Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs State

Tagaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Habbas Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Veena Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahima Ashish Loyal Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Anish Khan Vs Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur