Disposed¶25

Gulfam Son of Late Shri Shahbuddin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CW/10967/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death of father during service; age bar 40 years; date of birth dispute 19.12.1976; ration card as age proof; no enquiry conducted; Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur; State of Rajasthan Local Self Government; representation within 30 days; reasoned and speaking order; writ petition disposed of with directions; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Ashok Kumar Jain, J.; CW-10967/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner may file a representation within 30 days raising all grounds; respondents to decide it by reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt and communicate the decision (speed post/e-mail); liberty to approach the Court afresh with a new petition if aggrieved. ¶25

Gulfam Son of Late Shri Shahbuddin Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment in lieu of his father's death during service, notwithstanding rejection of his candidature on the ground that his date of birth (19.12.1976) exceeds the maximum prescribed age of 40 years, counsel contending the recorded 12-year age gap with his father is impossible. +2 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within 30 days raising all grounds.

¶24

Key takeaways

The respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of its receipt, to communicate the decision to the petitioner by speed post or e-mail if provided, and the petitioner remains free to approach the Court with a fresh petition if still aggrieved.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Ashok Kumar Jain, J.), by order dated 17/11/2025 disposed of a writ petition in which the petitioner sought compassionate appointment in lieu of his father's death during service with the respondents. His candidature had been rejected because his recorded date of birth (19.12.1976) placed him above the maximum prescribed age of 40 years; counsel urged that no enquiry was conducted, that the recorded 12-year gap between the father's age and the petitioner's was impossible, and that supporting documents such as the ration card ought to be considered. Without adjudicating these contentions on merits, the Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation within 30 days raising all grounds, directed the respondents-Authority to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt and to communicate the decision by speed post or e-mail, and left the petitioner at liberty to approach the Court afresh with a new petition if still aggrieved.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46193]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10967/2025

¶4

Gulfam Son Of Late Shri Shahbuddin, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 632, Rishi Galav Nagar, Galta Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj).

¶8

The C.e.o. Nagar Nigam, Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Bhawna, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Moti Dungri, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Puri Mr. Rohan Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶13

17/11/2025

¶14

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

¶15

following prayers:

¶16

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to appoint the petitioner on the on compassionate ground in lieu of his father's death during the service of the respondents. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶18

entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules but the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that date of birth of petitioner is 19.12.1976 and he has already crossed the maximum age, prescribed for appointment as 40 years. He

[2025:RJ-JP:46193]

[CW-10967/2025]

(2 of 2)

submits that no enquiry is conducted by respondents while considering the case for appointment under the compassionate appointment Rules. He further submitted that as per date of birth, considered by respondents, the difference between his father Late Shri Shahbuddin and himself (petitioner) is only 12 years but same is not possible in any circumstances. He further submitted that respondents authorities may be directed to consider other documents including ration card as submitted by him to support the age of present petitioner.

¶23

Having considered aforesaid, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation to respondents.

¶24

Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondentsAuthority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶26

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶27

CHETNA BEHRANI /15

Gulfam Son of Late Shri Shahbuddin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam Son of Late Shri Shahbuddin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampat Singh Lodha Son of Late Shri Sohan Lal Lodha Vs Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board

Ms. Sheril Gupta D/O Vishnu Gopal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Amikesh S/O Shri Birdi Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Sharma S/O Shri Kedar Nath Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Singh S/O Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Harshal Sarupariya S/O Abhay Sarupariya Vs State of Rajasthan