Allowed

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CW/2016/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patron challenged the rejection of his compassionate appointment claim. The court found the rejecting authority based its decision on a wrong premise regarding the date of application filed and inaction. The petitioner filed in 2011. The department inaction persisted for years. The petitioner consented to an alternate post in 2014. The court set aside the impugned order and directed reexamination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.01.2017 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reconsidered for compassionate appointment within four weeks upon filing a representation within two weeks.

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001346]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2016/2017

¶4

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Ward No.7, in front of Indian School, Station Road, Ranoli, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶10

Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶11

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar

¶12

Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Piprali, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Bharat Saini, Addl. Govt. Counsel.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶16

Order

¶17

02/02/2023

¶18

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.01.2017, whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to consider him for a compassionate appointment under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1996’) on the post of Teacher by considering his

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

(2 of 7)

qualification or in alternative, the respondents may be directed to give him appointment on a suitable post of LDC along-with consequential benefits.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father was working as Teacher Grade-III in Education Department and he unfortunately died while in service on 12.02.2011, while being posted at Government Middle School, Trilokpura Piprali, District Sikar.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed an application in a prescribed format in the concerned Office on 30.03.2011 for the post of Teacher Grade-III on the basis of possessing requisite qualification i.e. having passed B.Sc. Second Year Examination and showing a student of B. Sc. Third Year examination.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that on 28.07.2011, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Piprali, District Sikar also issued a certificate, whereby the fact of death of petitioner was examined and further the date of application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner on 30.03.2011, was also mentioned.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time when the petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III, there was a circular which was issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 21.10.2009, whereby it was provided that the dependant who had passed 12^th Class or above and did not have STC or B.Ed. qualification, could apply for the post of Teacher Grade-III but they were to acquire the requisite qualification within five years from the date of appointment.

(3 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents did not take any action on such an application filed by the petitioner and they issued a letter dated 26.09.2014, whereby the petitioner was informed that if he had possessed RTET qualification then he was to give some proof or the petitioner could apply for any other post.

¶31

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, immediately on receipt of aforesaid letter dated 26.09.2014, replied by filing a representation on 29.09.2014 and submitted that the petitioner was eligible for appointment on the post of LDC as the petitioner had passed Computer Course-RSCIT also, he also pointed out that since Public Service Commission has not conducted the RTET Examination and the petitioner gave his consent for appointment on the post of LDC.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Block Elementary Education Officer, recommended the case of the petitioner to the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar, narrating the complete facts with the consent of the petitioner on the post of LDC, however, the respondents did not take any action for almost three years and ultimately they issued impugned order dated 04.01.2017, whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected on account of opinion said to be given by the Department of Personnel, that the petitioner is alleged to have submitted his delayed application for compassionate appointment on 30.03.2011 and it was a wrong presumption on the part of the respondents that the petitioner had filed the application for the first time on 29.09.2014.

(4 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents themselves had kept the matter for appointment pending for almost three years and as per circular dated 21.10.2009, the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, as the petitioner could have acquired the requisite qualification within five years, making him eligible for the post of Teacher Grade-III.

¶37

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents themselves had issued a letter to the petitioner asking his option for any other post by sending a letter dated 26.09.2014 and the petitioner immediately on 29.09.2014 gave his consent for appointment on the post of LDC.

¶38

Learned counsel submitted that the said consent given by the petitioner cannot be treated as a first application given by him and only on account of sheer negligence on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay, if any, has been caused, is only due to slackness of the respondents and as such, claim of the petitioner cannot be defeated.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the opinion of the Department of Personnel is based on a wrong premise and as such, the Department of Personnel, which has been given power to condone the delay, if any, in submitting application, has not exercised its discretion in a proper manner and counsel, as such, refers to Rule 12 & 13 of the Rules of 1996, where, the Department of Personnel is the Nodal Department and further it has power to make any general or specific order, if may

(5 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

become necessary or expedient for proper implementation of these Rules.

¶45

Learned counsel submitted that even Rule 13 provides for removal of doubts in respect of application, interpretation and scope of Compassionate Rules and as such, this Court may direct the Department of Personnel to take appropriate decision in respect of application filed by the petitioner within time, seeking compassionate appointment.

¶46

Per contra, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents-State Mr.Bharat Saini submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as the petitioner did not fill the application form for the post, for which, he was eligible to be appointed, as the petitioner was not a graduate and he did not have the requisite qualification of RTET and as such, the Authorities have not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner.

¶47

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents had asked the petitioner to apply for an alternate post, however, the earlier application of the petitioner was not to be taken into account, as the petitioner himself first time had given his consent for the post of LDC by submitting an application on 29.09.2014.

¶48

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Department of Personnel has already exercised its discretion and as such, the Authorities have not committed any error in denying the claim of the petitioner.

¶49

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that father of the petitioner had expired on 12^th

(6 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

February, 2011 and now after a lapse of 12 years, there is no purpose of granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner as family of the deceased has survived for such a long time without getting any employment.

¶54

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

¶55

This Court finds that initially the petitioner had submitted an application and at the relevant time, the State Government had issued an order, whereby the persons who were not having the requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Grade-III, could be appointed and such qualification was allowed to be acquired within 5 years after initial appointment.

¶56

This Court finds that the respondents did not take any action for almost three years and they woke up in the year 2014 by writing letter to the petitioner to give his consent for any other alternative job.

¶57

This Court finds that the petitioner, if had submitted his response by submitting application and gave his consent on 29.09.2014, it cannot be said that the petitioner, for the first time, filed such application for seeking compassionate appointment.

¶58

This Court finds that the respondents themselves had issued a subsequent letter dated 16.12.2014 as well, wherein they recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and all the facts relating to an alternative employment, was mentioned in the said letter.

¶59

This Court finds that the impugned order dated 04.01.2017, has been passed by the respondents on a wrong

(7 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/001346]

[CW-2016/2017]

premise that the petitioner had moved an application for employment, first time on 29.09.2014.

¶64

This Court further finds that the Department of Personnel has also not acted in a proper manner in examining the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the delay which has been attributed to the petitioner’s application, is on a wrong premise to deprive him from consideration for his compassionate appointment by giving relaxation under the Rules.

¶65

This Court, accordingly, sets aside the order dated 04.01.2017 and directs the Department of Personnel to reexamine the case of the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment and the petitioner is also at liberty to file comprehensive and detailed representation before the Department of Personnel and if such representation is filed within a period of two weeks, the respondent-Department of Personnel will decide the same within a period of four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶66

It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s case is found eligible for compassionate appointment, necessary steps will be taken by the respondents without any further delay.

¶67

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶68

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶69

Himanshu Soni/155

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Smt Rakhi Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sameer Ahemad Son of Shri Islam Ahemad Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Meena S/O Shri Radheshyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Ronak Serawat S/O Ramkishor Serawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom Meena Son of Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary