Writ petition by the widow and son of a terminated Chowkidar challenging the termination order and seeking compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits. The court upheld the termination, held compassionate appointment was not maintainable as the employee died after termination and the claim was belated, and dismissed the petition.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7701/2008
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak with Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Sharma, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order
Reserved on 02/05/2024 Pronounced on 29/05/2024
“i) The termination order of the Vijay Singh dated 23.07.1994 may kindly be declared to be arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, void ab-initio, contrary to the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(2 of 9)
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
ii) The respondents may kindly further be directed to treat Shri Vijay Singh to be in continuous service of the respondents without any break.
iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground with effect from the date of submitting the application for appointment, with all consequential benefits to him.
iv) They may kindly further be directed to give the family pension and make the payment of State Insurance, GPF and other emoluments, which are due in favour of the petitioners, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
v) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
(3 of 9)
pensionary benefits and reimbursement of the medical bills of the deceased-Mr. Singh.
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
(4 of 9)
(5 of 9)
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
“3(2) - tgk¡ rd fnukad 9-3-89 ls Jh fot; flag ds ekufld jksxh gksus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa Jh fot; flag dks foHkkx dh vksj ls ckj ckj fy[kus ds mijkUr Hkh dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ;gk¡ rd fd foHkkx }kjk fnukad 4-10-93 dks jftLVMZ , 0Mh0 i= }kjk esfMdy cksMZ dk fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr djus gsrq fy[kk x;k] ysfdu mlds mijkUr Hkh mUgksaus dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= lgk;d vk;qDr dks izLrqr ugha fd;kA fnukad 24-3-94 dks Jh fot; flag us lgk;d vk;qDr ds le{k tks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk] mlesa muds }kjk ;g fy[kk x;k Fkk] fd ekufld jksx ds dkxtkr mlds ikl ugha gksdj mlds HkkbZ ds ikl gS rFkk ;g vuqjks/k fd;k fd mudh tkap djkdj esfMdy isU'ku djk ds muds iRuh dks ukSdjh ns nh tkosA pwafd fpfdRlk isU'ku ds lkFk iRuh dks ukSdjh fn;s tkus dh 'krZ izkFkZuk i= esa Mkyh xbZ Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa fu;ekuqlkj bl izdkj dh izkFkZuk dks Lohdkj djuk lEHko ugha FkkA
(6 of 9)
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
mlds mijkUr Hkh Jh fot; flag ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gq, rFkk u gh mUgksaus dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;kA vUrr% lgk;d vk;qDr nsoLFkku foHkkx dksVk us Jh fot; flag dks LoSfPNd :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k mUgsa i= Øekad 2918 fnukad 23-7-94 } kjk jktdh; lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA ;g i= jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 }kjk Jh fot; flag dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] ftls mUgksaus ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA tgk¡ rd lgk;d vk;qDr dk;kZy; dks fy[ks x;s i= fnukad 14-7-93 dk iz'u gS] i= dh ikyuk esa lgk;d vk;qDr us vius i= Øekad 3360 fnukad 4-10-93 jftLVMZ i= ls mUgs esfMdy cksMZ dk izek.k i= izLrqr djus gsrq dgkA mDr i= ds mijkUr Hkh Jh fot; flag us dksbZ fpfdRlk izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;kA bl leLr izdj.k esa lgk;d vk;qDr }kjk Jh fot; flag ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ nqHkkZouk gksuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA
5- foHkkx dh vksj ls tku cw> dj ,slh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ ftlls izkFkhZx.k dks fdlh ijs'kkuh dk lkekuk djuk iM+k gksA izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr esfMdy fcyksa ds Hkqxrku djus] jkT; chek ikWfylh dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djus] isU'ku ,oa mllas tqMs gq, ykHk nsus rFkk izkFkhZx.k esa ls fdlh ,d dks erd vkfJr ds :i esa jkT; lsok esa ysus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA tgk¡ rd jkT; chek ikWfylh dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku dk iz'u gS] tSlk fd Åij fcUnq la[;k 4 esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gS] bl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZx.k dks Mªk¶V }kjk Hkstk tk pqdk gSA lgk;d vk;qDr nsoLFkku foHkkx dksVk us vius i= fnukad 10-4-008 ls voxr djk;k gS fd Jh fot; flag vFkok izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr djuk crk;s x;s esfMdy fcy muds dk;kZy; esa Hkqxrku gsrq yfEcr ugha gSA lquokbZ ds fnu Hkh izkFkhZx.k ls fcyksa ds ckjs ea tkudkjh dh xbZ Fkh] ysfdu mUgksaus fcyksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ **s** iq[rk tkudkjh ugha gksuk crk;kA tgk¡ rd isU'ku ,oa isU'ku ls tqMs+ ykHk ,oa izkFkhZx.k esa ls fdlh ,d dks erd vkfJr ds :i esa jkT; lsok esa ysus dk iz'u gS] ;g jkgr izkFkhZx.k dks ugha nh tk ldrh D;ksafd Jh fot; flag dks mudh eR;q fnukad 6-8-94 ls iwoZ gh fnukad 23-7-94 dks jktdh; lsok ls iFkd fd;k tk pqdk FkkA Jh fot; flag eR;q ds fnu jkT; lsok esa ugha FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks ikfjokfjd isU'ku o mlls tqMs+ ifjykHk rFkk erd vkfJr :i esa jkT; lsok esa fy;s tkus dh jkgr iznku djuk fu;ekuqlkj lEHko ugha gSA ”
(7 of 9)
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
13.1 That petitioner no. 1 and 2’s husband and father respectively, was initially appointed on the post of ‘Chowkidar’ in the respondent-department and with the efflux of time, his service was made permanent.
13.2 That Mr. Singh did not mark his presence and render the service allotted qua him, due to certain medical conditions, as claimed by the petitioners. In this regard, the period of willful absentism is noted to subsist between 08.01.1994 to 11.02.1994.
13.3 That in justification of the said time period of willful absentism, no valid/sound documents have been placed on record.
13.4 That due intimation via a registered post was sent qua the petitioner’s husband, with regards to his willful absentism, by the respondents, but prima facie with malafide intentions, the petitioner refused to accept and/or acknowledge the same.
13.5 That regardless of the aforesaid, compassionate appointment at such a belated stage, cannot be granted to the deceased-employee’s family i.e. the petitioners, as the entire purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to help the grieving family to overcome the tide of financial uncertainty and immediate loss caused by the demise. However, as on date, approximately 30 years have lapsed since the demise of the said employee. Moreover, even when the said petition was filed in the Year 2008, approximately 14 years had lapsed since the demise of Mr. Singh.
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
(8 of 9)
13.6 That in compliance of the order dated 10.07.2007, passed in Smt. Dholki Devi (Supra) the respondent-department had passed a detailed speaking order dated 11.04.2008. The said order is sans any irregularities and is passed only after considering the material facts and merits of the case.
State Electricity Board and Ors. Versus Hakim Singh reported in AIR 1997 SC 3887 , wherein it was categorically held that the object of appointment of the dependent of the deceased employee, who dies in harness is to relieve unexpected hardships and distress caused to the family, by the sudden demise of the said earning member of the family. Claim of the dependent preferred long after the death of the deceased would amount to another mode of recruitment of such dependent, which shall be against the policy of Compassionate Appointment.
15.1 That the impugned termination order is passed sans discrimination and/or malice, in adherence of the provisions of law. Moreover, upon a perusal of the record, it is evident that the termination order was only passed, after sending notices via registered posts upon Mr. Singh, which were declined by Mr. Singh and the petitioners themselves. Hence, no protection can be granted to the person, who himself, chooses the injury.
(9 of 9)
[2024:RJ-JP:20948]
[CW-7701/2008]
15.2 That Mr. Singh was firstly terminated from his service and only died, subsequently. In this regard, it is noted that Mr. Singh died on 06.08.1994, whereas the termination order was passed on 23.07.1994. Hence, at no instance the claim qua the compassionate appointment can be adjudicated on merits. Moreover, compassionate appointment is not a vested right, especially when the same is claimed after a belated stage.
15.3 That the Commissioner, Devasthan Department has duly adjudicated the matter on merits, by way of a speaking order dated 11.04.2008. Hence, the same requires no further consideration, on the present date.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /472
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the deceased employee without departmental proceedings under Rule 86(3) RSR was arbitrary and illegal.
Whether compassionate appointment could be granted to the deceased's family after a delay of about 30 years since his death.
Whether family pension and State Insurance/GPF benefits were payable when the employee died after termination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. Versus Hakim SinghRelied on¶14
AIR 1997 SC 3887 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Dhakoli Devi
Khem Singh
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Devasthan Department
District Collector, Karauli
Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur
Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Kota Division, Kota Raj.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
