Dismissed

Sandeep Yadav S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal Yadav v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2022CW/290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment claim where petitioner's real brother is employed in Delhi Police, holding that employment of a family member generally bars appointment regardless of personal relations between members.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; claim for compassionate appointment rejected.

Sandeep Yadav S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.290/2020

¶4

Sandeep Yadav S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.P.O. Partapur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education, Directorate, Bikaner Raj.

¶9

The Chief Block Education Officer, Neemrana District Alwar, (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akshit Gupta, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶13

22/11/2022

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.03.2019, whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of employment of real brother of the petitioner namely Abhay Singh in Delhi Police as Constable and such person has been found to be a member of family of the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner Late Banwari Lal Yadav had expired on 24.07.2018 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 12.09.2018.

¶16

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner annexed all the relevant documents with the application form and further the petitioner had given the required declaration before the Authorities.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-290/2020]

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that the decision passed by the respondents on 25.03.2019 is an arbitrary exercise of power by them.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the brother of the petitioner is not having any relation with the present petitioner as well as with the rest of his family and the petitioner has to take care of his other family members and as such, only on account of real brother of the petitioner being employed in Delhi Police, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the very purpose of giving the compassionate appointment is to take care of family members, who are left behind by the deceased government servant and if any of the member of family is employed in any organization, the same should not result into depriving the present petitioner from compassionate appointment, provided such person has to look after his family.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that if the real brother of the petitioner is not maintaining any relation with his family, the denial of compassionate appointment to the present petitioner is wholly unjustified and arbitrary.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶24

Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Rules of 1996’) provides certain conditions that if any employment is already given to any of the sons of the deceased government servant in Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-290/2020]

¶27

time of death of the government servant, such person cannot be held entitled for giving compassionate appointment.

¶28

This Court also finds that there is an exception carved out in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, that if widow applies for the compassionate appointment, then the aforesaid condition is not applicable.

¶29

This Court, in the present facts of the case, finds that the petitioner has applied in place of his deceased father and his mother has not applied for the job and as such, while considering the scope of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the respondents have come to conclusion that the real brother of the petitioner is already employed in Delhi Police on the post of Constable and as such, claim of the present petitioner cannot be entertained.

¶30

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that brother of the petitioner does not have good family relation with the other family members or he does not visit them, the same cannot be a ground to claim compassionate appointment and social & personal relation between family members of the deceased and petitioner will not govern the case for considering the grant of compassionate appointment.

¶31

This Court finds that the respondents while issuing the order dated 25.03.2019 have kept in mind the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 and accordingly it cannot be said that they acted arbitrarily.

¶32

The present writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed accordingly.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶34

Himanshu Soni/31

Sandeep Yadav S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal Yadav v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Yadav S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal Yadav v. the 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

Choti Devi W/O Shri Ramraj Meena Vs Gulbai Meena W/O Shri Prahalad Meena

Mr. Rameshwar Jaswal (Co-Borrower) Vs Reserve Bank of India

Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Kishore S/O. Kanhaiya Lal Vs Smt. Janki Devi W/O. Dhanna Lal

Smt Nahid Mirja, Wife of Shri Mirja Maksood Bag Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwari Singh S/O Makkhan Vs State of Rajasthan