Dismissed

Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2022CW/624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim by a widowed daughter-in-law. The court held she is not a 'Dependent' as defined by the Rules of 1996 and further dismissed the claim due to the delay in filing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was denied as she does not qualify as a dependent under the rules and the petition was filed after an impermissible delay.

Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2018

¶3

Smt. Durga Devi Mairda Wife Of Late Shri Basant, Resident Of Village And Post- Dhalkiya, Tehsil And District Banswara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Thorugh- The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Engineer Administration, Public Health And Engineering Department Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintending Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department Circle, Udaipur.

¶10

Executive Engineer Public Health And Engineering Department, District Rural Division, Udaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ramdev Potalia.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.	Anjana Jawa.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

28/09/2022

¶16

Smt. Gawari Devi while working as a Class-IV employee in the respondent-department, passed away on 07.02.2013. The petitioner, widowed daughter in law of the deceased employee filed an application seeking compassionate appointment in the year 2013 as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment to the Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’). The respondent-department rejected the application vide orders dated

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CW-624/2018]

¶19

20.03.2013 and 21.03.2014 on the count that ‘widowed daughter in law’ does not fall within the definition of ‘Dependent’ provided under the Rules of 1996.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment deserves to be declared bad in the eyes of law as ‘widowed daughter in law’ should be considered as ‘dependent’ of a Government servant as defined under Rule-2(c) of the Rules of 1996. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. C.W. No.9177/2010). Counsel further relied on judgments rendered by Chhattisgarh High Court and Allahabad High Court in the cases of Smt. Duliya Bai Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Petition (S) No.5051 of 2014) and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi (S.A.W. No.1026 of 2003) respectively.

¶21

Rule-2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:-

¶22

“2.(c) “Dependent” means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, [adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter] legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death.”

¶23

In State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari &

¶24

Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that compassionate appointment should be made strictly in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the

¶25

(3 of 5) [CW-624/2018]

¶26

financial condition of the family of the deceased. It was further observed that such employment is an exception to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The object of compassionate appointment is only to enable the family of the deceased to overcome sudden financial crisis and not to confer any status upon it.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court summarised the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs.

¶28

V. Somyashree reported in (2021) 12 SCC 20 as under:

¶29

“(i) that the compassionate appointment is an

¶30

exception to the general rule;

¶31

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

¶32

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

¶33

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

¶34

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”

¶35

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any statutory provisions, a ‘widowed daughter in law’ cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondentdepartment had rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for

¶36

(4 of 5)

¶37

[CW-624/2018]

¶38

compassionate appointment in consonance with the definition of

¶39

“dependent” provided under the rules of 1996.

¶40

In the case of Ganpat Parihar v Food Corporation of

¶41

India and Ors.: D.B. S.A.W. 573/2022, Division Bench of this Court observed that:

¶42

“We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The applications for compassionate appointment filed by the appellant in the year 2000/2003 was rejected on 29.09.2011. Since, the appellant did not challenge the order dated 29.09.2011 for six years, it can be presumed that the crisis faced by the family must have been averted with the passage of time.”

¶43

In the case of Naveen Kumar Donganwa v The Chief Managing Director and Ors.: D.B. S.A.W. 284/2021, Division Bench of this Court held as under:

¶44

“We are in agreement with the reasons given by Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The application for compassionate appointment was filed by the appellant in the year 2012 and subsequently, he was offered appointment on the post of Assistant-I vide order dated 06.02.2014. The offer was not availed by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant and his family have survived without availing appointment for all these years. At this stage, when the crisis that had occurred on account of sudden death of the appellant’s father is over, appellant’s request for compassionate appointment as per educational qualification (B.Tech./B.E.) or by reviving the order dated 06.02.2014 cannot be granted. As the whole object of granting

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

[CW-624/2018]

¶47

compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arise due to the death of the sole bread winner. After the passage of a long period of time, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as the crisis is over.”

¶48

Admittedly, the deceased Government servant passed away on 07.02.2013. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2013 itself. The present writ petition has been preferred after about four years from the date of orders of rejections i.e. 20.03.2013 and 21.03.2014. The petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment in view of aforesaid settled position of law cannot be entertained at a belated stage.

¶49

In view of discussion made herein above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶50

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶53

Prashant/-

Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Dalpat Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Swami Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Laxman Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Kangasia Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhani Ram Vs Labour Court and Ors.

Ramniwas Ram Vs State and Ors.