Allowed

Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CW/2482/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of compassionate appointments of petitioners who are grandchildren of deceased government employees. The Court held they qualify as 'close relatives' under the relevant rules and quashed the termination order which was also violative of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 27.04.2001 and 17.05.2001 terminating services were quashed and set aside. Petitioners were entitled to consequential benefits.

Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2482/2001

¶4

Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, aged abut 30 years R/o Dhola Kua, Kaman, Dist. Bharatpur.

¶5

Kailash Chand S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, aged about 30 years R/o Kutti Mohalla, Kaman, Dist. Bharatpur.

¶6

Vimla Devi D/o Radhey Shyam Ji, aged about 30 years R/o Radha Colony, Kaman, Bharatpur.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Head Office, Jaipur.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Deeg, Bharatpur.

¶11

The Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner.

¶12

The Additional Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma

¶15

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC with Mr. Sourabh Yadav

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order

¶17

10/07/2024

¶18

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.04.2001 passed by the respondents terminating their services as also the consequential order dated 17.05.2001 passed in pursuance of the order dated 27.04.2001.

¶19

The relevant facts in brief are that on death of grandfather of the petitioners no.1 and 2 and death of father of the petitioner no.3, who all were employed with the respondent-State, they were given appointment vide order dated 11.10.1995 as beldar under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Service Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for brevity, “the Rules of

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

[CW-2482/2001]

(2 of 6)

1975”). After they had rendered services for a period more than six and a half year, their services came to be terminated vide order impugned dated 27.04.2001 for the reason that their appointment was against the Rules.

¶24

Learned counsels for the petitioners, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975, would submit that any close relative of the deceased could be given appointment under the Rules with the consent of the widow/guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel (for brevity, “DoP”). They submit that since the petitioners no.1 and 2 happen to be grandchildren and the petitioner no.3 happens to be married daughter of the deceased employees, they were rightly extended appointment under the Rules of 1975 and it was not open for the respondents to have terminated their services on the premise that their compassionate appointment was against the Rules. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 27.04.2001 as also the consequential order dated 17.05.2001 be quashed and set aside. They, in support of their submissions, rely upon following judgements of this Court:-

¶25

1. Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and other connected matters: Civil Reference No.1/2022

¶26

2. Shashi Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: D.P. Special Appeal (Writ) No.792/2000.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that the petitioner no.3, in view of the judgement dated 13.09.2022 passed by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Priyanka Shrimali

¶28

(3 of 6) [CW-2482/2001]

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

¶30

(supra) and other connected matters, was entitled for appointment being married daughter of the deceased Government Employee. Qua the petitioners no.1 and 2, he submits that they being grandchildren of the deceased Government Employees, were not entitled for compassionate appointment not being the close relative. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

Heard. Considered.

¶32

To better appreciate the rival contentions, it would be profitable to quote the relevant Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975 as under:-

¶33

“2(f) “Family” means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and married or widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government Servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant;

¶34

Provided that if no such member of the family is eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel. ”

¶35

A perusal of the proviso reflects that in case none of the family members of the deceased Government Servant as described in Clause 2(f) main provision is available for appointment, any other close relative of the deceased is eligible for appointment provided the conditions stated therein are satisfied.

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

[CW-2482/2001]

In the case of Shashi Bala (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting the aforesaid provision, held that the second wife of the deceased Government Employee falls under the mischief of ‘close relative’ of the deceased and was entitled for appointment as consented by the widow of the deceased. On the aforesaid analogy, this Court fails to understand as to why the grandchildren of the deceased Government Employees would not fall within the mischief of ‘close relative’ of the deceased employee for the purpose of Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975.

¶40

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Gajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: MANU/RH/0988/2009 decided on 14.09.2009 while interpreting the provision of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for brevity, “the Rules of 1996”), held as under:-

¶41

“4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. It is true that in the definition “Dependant” given in Clause (c) of Rule 2 of Rules of 1996, it has been provided that “Dependant” means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter leagally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death; but at the same time, it is clear from the Rules of 1996 itself that the intention is to give support to the family of employee who dies while in service leaving behind any of his family members who was dependant upon the deceased employee and to support those dependants, the provision has been made for giving appointment in

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

[CW-2482/2001]

peculiar facts and circumstances. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is the only grand-son as well as his father was the only son of the deceased employee and petitioner’s father has already died and he was dependant upon the deceased employee.

¶46

In view of the above reasons, even if specifically the grand-son has not been included in the definition of dependant even then by virtue of unfortunate event of death of son of government employee’s before government servant’s death grand-son is valid claimant for the appointment under the Rules of 1996 as he was wholly dependant on the deceased government employee at the time of the death of government servant.”

¶47

Thus, in the aforesaid case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held the grandchildren to be entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 wherein, the definition of ‘dependant’ is not as wide as the definition of ‘family’ under the Rules of 1975.

¶48

In this case, as per the affidavit of Smt. Somati Devi, the widow of one of the deceased Government Employee, he did not have any son and the petitioner no.1 is the son of the only daughter of the deceased and as per the affidavit of Smt. Bhaggo Devi, the widow of another deceased Government Employee, the petitioner no.2 is the son of her daughter.

¶49

Therefore, in the aforesaid factual context and the backdrop of the precedential law laid down in the cases of Shashi Bala (supra) and Gajendra Singh (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the grandchildren are covered under the definition of ‘close relative’ for the purpose of Rule 2(f) of the Rules.

[2024:RJ-JP:28901]

[CW-2482/2001]

(6 of 6)

Further, it has not been case of the respondents that either any other closer relative of the deceased Government Employee had better claim than the petitioners or that widow/guardian of the children of the deceased Government Employees did not accord their consent or it was not with the specific approval of the DoP in absence whereof, this Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the reason assigned in the order impugned dated 27.04.2001 terminating services of the petitioners after six and a half year of their appointment extended without playing any fraud or misrepresentation.

¶54

There is one more important aspect of the matter. The impugned termination order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in violation of principles of natural justice. Ordinarily, this Court would have remanded the matter back to respondents for fresh adjudication; however, in view of the foregoing reasons whereunder, the order impugned has not been found to be tenable otherwise, this course would be an empty formality.

¶55

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.04.2001 as also the consequential order dated 17.05.2001 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits available in accordance with law. The exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶56

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶57

PRAGATI/8

Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. v. State 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejmal Bairwa Son of Shri Bhura Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Pinkesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Siyaram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar, S/O Shri Birbal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Magan Singh S/O Shri -Dhan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Leelawati D/O Manohar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Yadram Yadav S/O Shri Jagmal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan