The High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The court held that a brother of a deceased government servant does not qualify as a 'dependent' under the 1996 Rules and followed the binding precedent of Hari Ram Vishnoi to dismiss the plea as devoid of merit.
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. 481/2019
Krishan Kumar S/o Late Shri Purna Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Vikkage-Ghotda Pattaa, Tehsil-Bhadra, DistrictHanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Ojla For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/09/2023
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
“By an appropriate writ ordr or direction the respondent may kindly be directed that the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Class IV employee on the compassionate ground as per the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of dependants of deceased government servant rules, 1996 from the date of the application along with all consequential benefits.
[CW-481/2019]
(2 of 6)
(ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased Government servant was brother of the petitioner who died while in service on 15.03.2016 and thereafter he submitted an application for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the respondents have refused to grant appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner cannot be treated as dependent of the deceased Government servant. Counsel submits that the impugned order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the respondents be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.
Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.
This fact is not in dispute that the deceased Rajpal was serving in Government department and he died while in service on 15.03.2016. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased who does not fall within the definition of dependent as defined under Rule 2C of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.
It is worthy to note here that the validity of the said rule was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ No.1725/2019) and the vires of the said Rule were held to
(3 of 6)
[CW-481/2019]
be intra vires and the said petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.03.2019 by making the following observations in para 5 to 13 as under:
“5. Indubitably, compassionate appointment of dependents of Deceased Government Servant, who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State on permanent basis or holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis including period of probation as probationer trainee, is governed by the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 defines
“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;
[CW-481/2019]
(4 of 6)
“As a rule, appointment in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualification laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.”
(5 of 6)
[CW-481/2019]
must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality. The court held:
“16. All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a viewto see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit theexception has been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder.” (emphasis supplied)
(6 of 6)
[CW-481/2019]
their own source of income by agriculture and they cannot be said to be dependent upon their son/brother who had entered into the service of the State Government only seven months before his death. As a matter of fact, immediately before his employment, the deceased Government servant was dependent upon his parents. The petitioner claims that he is married and has three children, obviously, the responsibility to maintain his family lies upon the petitioner himself. In any case, the petitioner and his famil members cannot be considered to be dependent upon his deceased brother.
Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra), this Court does not find any reason to take a different view.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly . Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/100
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being a brother of the deceased government servant, falls within the legal definition of 'dependent' under the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of dependants of deceased gov
Krishan Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
The Director, Elementary Education
District Education Officer
Block Elementary Education Officer
The Head Master
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
