The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment for a deceased employee's son, holding Rule 5(1) bars appointment when another child is already employed with a Central Government undertaking.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9797/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Rajkumawat For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
07/12/2021
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 14.05.2019 whereby, the candidature of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2, died on 28.02.2019 while in service with Agriculture Department. After his death, an application came to be moved seeking
(2 of 4)
[CW-9797/2021]
appointment for petitioner No.2, the younger son. The application has been rejected vide order impugned dated 14.05.2019 for the reason that elder son of the deceased Government employee, Pawan Kumar Mahawar is already employed with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for brevity “IOCL”), a Central Government undertaking.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since, the petitioners are ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of Rule 5 (2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), the respondents erred in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to extend the petitioner No.2 compassionate appointment.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:-
“ 5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:
(1) When a Government Servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government Service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organization/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State
(3 of 4)
[CW-9797/2021]
Government at the time of death of the Government Servant.
Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant of the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant of the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that dependant family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of showcause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated.”
Thus, Rule 5 (1) in no uncertain terms provides that an applicant shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment if any of the family members of the deceased Government employee including his son, is already employed on regular basis under the Central/State Government or any corporation owned or controlled by the Central or by the State Government.
Indisputably, elder son of the deceased Government employee and elder brother of the petitioner No.2 namely Shri Pawan Kumar Mahawar is already employed with IOCL, a Central Government undertaking and hence, the respondents did not err in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment.
Though, an exception has been carved out for widow of the deceased but, the petitioner No.1 is not seeking her appointment
(4 of 4)
[CW-9797/2021]
on compassionate basis. Sub-Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 does not come to the rescue of the petitioners even if they are ready to furnish an undertaking in terms thereof, as it applies only when a dependant family member of the deceased Government employee is extended compassionate appointment on account of his/her eligibility. Since, the petitioner No.2 is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1996, Rule 5 (2) does not come into play.
This writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/92
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a son of a deceased government employee is eligible for compassionate appointment if another son is already employed with a Central Government undertaking.
Whether an undertaking to maintain family members can validate a claim for compassionate appointment rejected on eligibility grounds.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimla Devi
Deepak Kumar Mahawar
State Of Rajasthan
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
