The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following his father's death in service. The court held that since his mother was already employed in government service at the time of his father's death, the petition lacked merit under Rule 5 and was dismissed. Pending applications were also dismissed.
Petition dismissed. Pending applications dismissed.
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. 4098/2008
Deepesh Mathur Son Of Late Shri Virendra Kumar, 6/6 Hanuman Bag Colony, In Front Of Laxmitara Cinema, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Udit Sharma for Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
21/08/2023
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
“It is, prayed therefore, most respectfully that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow present writ petition and to call the relevant record and to quash and set aside the letter of denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner and the respondents be directed to consider the application of petitioner and to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground without any further delay.”
Contents of the petition indicates that father of the petitioner died while in service on 06.12.1992 and after five years of the death of the father, the mother of the petitioner submitted
[CW-4098/2008]
(2 of 2)
an application 17.05.1997 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Contents of the petition further indicates that mother of the petitioner Smt. Santosh Mathur was already employed in a Government service at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. Considering all these facts the respondents have denied compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
The respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the order impugned in terms of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) which clearly lays down that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed in a case where spouse, one the sons or daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central / State Government or statutory body organization.
Here in the instant case, the mother of the petitioner was already appointed on the post of Teacher at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. The respondents have not caused any illegality in denying appointment to the petitioner as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996.
I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/86
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners' eligibility for compassionate appointment could be denied on the ground that the petitioner's mother was already employed in government service at the time of the father's dea
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepesh Mathur
State Of Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
