Dismissed

Somveer v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CW/2562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment on the death of his Constable brother, claiming to be a dependent 'unmarried brother'. The court held a widower with a son is not unmarried and cannot be a dependent; the writ petition was summarily dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Somveer Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20660]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2562/2024

¶4

Somveer S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Govind Singh, Post Nuhand, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

09/05/2024

¶15

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 24.07.2023, whereby the request for compassionate appointment filed by Smt. Kamla Devi (mother of the petitioner) for giving appointment to the present petitioner (Somveer) has been turned down.

¶16

The requisite facts are that one Jai Prakash (brother of the petitioner) was appointed as Constable in the year 2013, who unfortunately passed away on 25.10.2022 in a road accident. Said Jai Prakash left for heavenly abode, leaving his mother Kamla Devi, as Class-I heir.

[2024:RJ-JD:20660]

[CW-2562/2024]

(2 of 4)

Jai Prakash’s mother Kamla Devi, who has attained the age of 62 years, submitted an application asking the respondents to give appointment to her elder son-the present petitioner-Somveer, who is 36 years of age as of today.

¶21

Said application came to be rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 24.07.2023, inter-alia indicating that as per inquiry conducted by them, her son-the present petitioner and brother of deceased Government employee is a widower and is having a son namely Rohit.

¶22

Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-Somveer has been living with the joint family as is evident from the family card/ration card and therefore he is entitled for compassionate appointment. He argued that sub-clause (v) of Clause (c) of Rule (2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’) keeps within its sweep the expression ‘brother’.

¶23

Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner who is a widower falls within the ambit of the expression ‘unmarried brother’ used in Rule 2 (c)(v) and thus, deserves to be given appointment and secondly, the prefix ‘unmarried’ used before the word brother has no reasonable nexus and thus, the same deserves to be read down. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶24

Before adverting to analysis of facts, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant part of the definition of ‘dependent’ which runs under sub-clause (v) of Clause (c) of Rule (2) :-

[2024:RJ-JD:20660]

[CW-2562/2024]

(3 of 4)

“Mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant.”

¶29

There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner is a widower. While observing that widower by no stretch of imagination can be said to be ‘unmarried person’, this Court does not find any merit and substance in petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Even if contention of Mr. Rajpurohit is tested on the anvil of logic, it cannot be believed that the person who is older in age would depend upon a younger brother despite getting married and having a son.

¶30

Indisputably, petitioner is 36 years of age and younger brother of the deceased Jai Prakash was given appointment in the year 2013. The petitioner got married and his wife passed away in 2008. If petitioner could sustain himself, his deceased wife and his son Rohit, he cannot say and claim that he was always dependent upon the deceased Government employee namely Jai Prakash, who got the Government job on 28.06.2013.

¶31

The Rules of 1996 have been incorporated as an exception to the normal Rules of appointment and in order to give a financial support to the bereaved family, more particularly to the dependents of the deceased employee. The petitioner who claims to have remained dependent upon his younger brother until attaining the age of 36 years, without disclosing as to what he was doing is to thank himself for being dependent even after fathering a child. He cannot claim any right of appointment under the Rules of 1996.

¶32

Interpreted by whatever stretch of imagination, the Rules of 1996 cannot be interpreted in a manner to give employment to

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:20660]

[CW-2562/2024]

person like the petitioner, who despite attaining 36 years of age has chosen to look towards income of his younger brother.

¶37

The expression ‘unmarried brother’ used in the definition of dependent is valid and has a sustainable logic behind it. An ‘unmarried brother’ can depend upon and claim himself to be dependent upon income of his elder brother. But a married or widowed brother having his own family cannot claim himself to be a dependent.

¶38

The beneficial legislation cannot be stretched or extended to such an extent that the very fabric and purpose of the Rules is broken.

¶39

Finding no merit and substance, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.

¶40

Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶41

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶42

13-raksha/-

Somveer v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Somveer v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Dhabhai Vs Sukhveer Singh Chaudhary

Executive Engineer Vs Shri Bardu Mali

Executive Engineer Vs Durgalal Mali

Prateek Soni Vs Shri Naveen Jain

Dilip Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Ratnu Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation