Disposed

Shanti Lal Damor v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024CW/992/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of compassionate appointment to the brother of a deceased teacher who died during probation. The court found the authority relied on the pre-amendment definition requiring one year's service and set aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order dated 18.12.2023 set aside; liberty to petitioner to apply afresh for compassionate appointment, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Shanti Lal Damor Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6356]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 992/2024

¶4

Shanti Lal Damor S/o Shri Dhan Ji, Aged About 42 Years, B/c. Bheel R/o Himmat Singh Ka Gada, Post Rujiya, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Sanskrit Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Director, Department Of Sanskrit Education, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

The Divisional Sanskrit Education Officer, Divisional Sanskrit Education Office, Division Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶10

The Principal, Government Parveshika Sanskrit School, Dalot District Pratapgarh, (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Aruna Negi
For Respondent(s)	: ---

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/02/2024

¶16

Grievance of the petitioner arises out of an order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure-9), vide which the compassionate appointment under the Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Rules 1996 has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that since Late Shri Mangi Lal had joined services on 11.02.2023 and died on 19.04.2023, he did not complete his probation period of one year.

¶17

Brief facts are:

[2024:RJ-JD:6356]

[CW-992/2024]

(2 of 4)

2.1 The petitioner is B.A. B.Ed. and brother of Late Shri Mangi Lal.

¶22

2.2 Petitioner’s brother was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade Ist (Sanskrit) at Government Upper Primary School, Pratapgarh in Department of Sanskrit Education. He died in harness on 19.04.2023.

¶23

2.3 After the death of Shri Mangi Lal, the petitioner being his brother, applied along with all requisite documents for compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. The Divisional Sanskrit Education officer wrote a letter to the Director, Sanskrit Education and recommended appointment to the petitioner.

¶24

2.4 However, the Director vide letter / order dated 18.12.2023 denied compassionate appointment on the ground that since Late Shri Mangi Lal had joined the services on 11.02.2023 and died on 19.04.2023 he, therefore, did not complete his probation period of one year. Hence the present writ petition.

¶25

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order. 4. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be filed by them.

¶26

A bare perusal of the order impugned herein clearly reflects that what seems to have weighed on the mind of the competent authority passing the aforesaid order was an unamended definition of a deceased Government servant as per Rule 2 of the

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6356]

[CW-992/2024]

Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. Unamended

¶31

definition of deceased employee is as below:-

¶32

(b) “Deceased Government servant” means a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debitable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and who was:-

¶33

(i) Permanent, or

¶34

(ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis, or

¶35

(iii) appointed against a regular vacancy on urgent / temporary appointment and had put in one years continuous service as such;”

¶36

No doubt, the unamended definition of a deceased employee envisaged that unless the deceased employee was in probation for one year of continuous service as a probationer, he would not fall under the definition of a deceased Government servant. This very reason has been assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶37

What seems to have lost sight of the competent authority is the crucial fact that the aforesaid requirement of minimum one year of service as probationer was done away vide notification dated 25.04.2012 by carrying out an amendment. Instead following Sub-Clause (b) (i) was inserted vide the amendment:-

¶38

“(b)“Deceased Government Servant” means a person who was employed in connection with the Affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debitable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and, who was, -

¶39

(i) Permanent, or

¶40

(ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis including period of probation as probationer-trainee.”

(emphasis supplied)

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6356]

[CW-992/2024]

A perusal of the above, clearly reflects that the minimum requirement of one year as probationer has been dispensed with. Meaning thereby, an employee, once appointed on a regular post, even if dies in harness during probation, he shall stand on the same footing as any other regular employee.

¶46

In the premise, the competent authority who passed the impugned order clearly committed material irregularity in law by relying on an unamended definition of deceased employee.

¶47

The impugned order is accordingly not sustainable and is set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a fresh application seeking benefit of compassionate appointment as per the Rules ibid , which shall be dealt with in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 11. Disposed of accordingly with liberty as aforesaid.

¶48

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶49

65-DhananjayS/-

¶50

Whether Reportable:Yes / No

Shanti Lal Damor v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Lal Damor v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moinuddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajrang Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nirmala Chouhan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ladu Ram Bishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanu Priya Sunda Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramawatar Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan