Dismissed

Kirta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2021CW/9597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. The court held the rejection was justified as the petitioner was over the statutory age limit. The petitioner was aged 46, exceeding the proviso's limit of up to 40 years.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The order passing on 22.05.2020 rejecting the application for compassionate appointment was upheld.

Kirta Ram 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. 9597/2021

¶3

Kirta Ram S/o Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dungroniyon Ki Dhani, Sawau Padamsingh, Tehsil-Gida, District - Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Van Bhawan, New Pali Road, Jodhpur.

¶8

Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Stage-Ii, Jaisalmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kistur Chand. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

17/11/2021

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.05.2020 (Annex.10) passed by the respondents, whereby, the application made by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected as the petitioner was over aged.

¶15

It is inter-alia indicated in the writ petition that petitioner is an adopted son of Bhuraram, who was working under Deputy Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Canal on the post of Beldar. While in service, he died on 30.04.2018 and as his wife had expired on 05.09.1987, the petitioner based on his qualification sought appointment on the compassionate basis.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-9597/2021]

¶18

By the order impugned, the respondent has indicated that under provisio (ii) to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules’), as the petitioner was above the age of 40 years, he was not entitled for grant of appointment and consequentially rejected the application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that rejection of petitioner’s application is not justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner being unemployed was entitled to be accorded appointment.

¶20

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

¶21

The Rule 8 of the Rules relating to age of the dependent provides that the same should be within the age limit prescribed for the post under the concerned service Rules at the time of employment and under proviso it has been provided that the upper age limit shall be relaxed by five years in period or upto 40 years of age, whichever is less.

¶22

In the present case, the petitioner is already aged 46 years and in those circumstances it cannot be said that the rejection of petitioner’s application is against the provisions of Rules of 1996.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, there is not substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶25

10-pradeep/-

Kirta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirta Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fullabai Vs State of Rajasthan

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Samay Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rasal Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Birawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan