Dismissed¶31

Ms. Loveena Babbar W/O Shri Ravi Rawat v. Ravi Rawat Son of Shri Anand Singh Rawat

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2025SAW/974/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur D.B. Special Appeal Writ 974/2025, decided 06/10/2025 — compassionate appointment PHED Rajasthan; concealment of marital status in application immaterial; daughter-in-law's employment no bar under Rule 5 Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules 2021; appeal by wife dismissed as motivated by personal vengeance; cost Rs. 5000 to Children's Home; references: Mohammed Imran (2019) 17 SCC 696, Avtar Singh (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar Sharma (2023) 12 SCC 317, Ravindra Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 264.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in the Children's Home; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶31

Ms. Loveena Babbar W/O Shri Ravi Rawat Vs Ravi Rawat Son of Shri Anand Singh Rawat — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in the Children's Home; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether concealment of the claimant's married status in the application for compassionate appointment affects the validity/propriety of the compassionate appointment granted to him. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

So far as claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, the marital status of the claimant has no relation or effect on the compassionate appointment to be granted to the claimant; the Division Bench is in agreement with the learned Single Judge's view on this point.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the wife of the son of the deceased government servant is in service would not be an impediment for the son seeking compassionate appointment; the other aspect regarding the appellant being in service is without any basis.

¶30

Key takeaways

The appeal appears to have been filed only for personal vengeance; it is settled law that justice cannot be used for personal vengeance/purpose, supporting imposition of cost.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 974/2025 (Rajasthan HC, Jaipur; Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Acting CJ & Baljinder Singh Sandhu; decided 06/10/2025) — Appeal by wife of a compassionate appointee dismissed. The appellant had complained that her husband (respondent-writ petitioner) wrongfully obtained compassionate appointment by concealing his married status, leading the State Government to set aside the appointment; the learned Single Judge ruled in his favour, relying on Mohammed Imran (2019) 17 SCC 696, Avtar Singh (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar Sharma (2023) 12 SCC 317 and Ravindra Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 264. The Division Bench agreed that the marital status of the claimant has no relation or effect on compassionate appointment, and held, reading Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules, 2021, that mere employment of the claimant's wife (daughter-in-law of the deceased government servant) is not an impediment, the Rule 5 bar applying to a spouse/son/unmarried daughter of the deceased already in regular government employment. Holding the appeal to be for personal vengeance, the Court dismissed it and imposed cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in the Children's Home.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40348-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 974/2025

¶4

Ms. Loveena Babbar W/o Shri Ravi Rawat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Flat No. - 604, Sixth Floor, Luxurious Heavan Apartment, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ravi Rawat Son Of Shri Anand Singh Rawat, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 45, Brij Puri, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Assistant Engineer, Phed, Sub-Division V (South) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Ms. Priya Prakash For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶14

Judgment

¶15

06/10/2025

¶16

This is an appeal preferred by the wife of the respondent-writ petitioner who filed a complaint against her husband for having been granted compassionate appointment wrongfully. On her complaint the State Government set aside the appointment granted to the respondent-writ petitioner. It was stated by the appellant in her complaint that the respondent-writ petitioner had concealed the fact of having a married status in his application

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:40348-DB]

¶18

[SAW-974/2025]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

moved for seeking compassionate appointment. She has also stated that she was working and even a daughter-in-law is entitled to seek compassionate appointment, her husband could not have been granted compassionate appointment.

¶21

The learned Single Judge having considered both the aspects reached to the conclusions that the disclosure of marital status by the son would not have any effect with regard to the appointment on compassionate grounds. There is no condition laid down in the rules for the purpose of reflecting as to whether the son is married or not. The learned Single Judge has also relied on Mohammed Imran Vs. The State of Maharashtra [(2019) 17 SCC 696], Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India [(2023) 12 SCC 317] and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of UP [(2024) 5 SCC 264], to reach to the aforesaid conclusions.

¶22

We are in agreement with the view as taken by the learned Single Judge that so far as claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, the marital status of claimant has no relation or effect on the compassionate appointment to be granted to the claimant.

¶23

The other aspect regarding the appellant being in service is also found to be without any basis. It would be apposite to quote the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules, 2021 as under:

¶24

“5. Appointment subject to certain conditions :- (1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:40348-DB]

¶27

[SAW-974/2025]

¶28

unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant or at the time of appointment of the dependent. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself

¶29

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated.”

¶30

Thus, merely because wife of the son of the deceased government servant is in service would not be an impediment for seeking compassionate appointment. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. The appeal appears to have been filed only for personal vengeance. It is a settled law that justice cannot be used for personal vengeance/purpose. Cost of amount of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in the Children’s Home.

¶31

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶33

Rahul/Diksha-26

Ms. Loveena Babbar W/O Shri Ravi Rawat v. Ravi Rawat Son of Shri Anand Singh Rawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Loveena Babbar W/O Shri Ravi Rawat v. Ravi Rawat Son of Shri Anand Singh Rawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In Re Vs Advocate Shri Tarachand Sharma

Dr. Rakesh Sharma S/O Hari Shanker Sharma Vs Shri Subir Kumar

Dr. Shanti Lal Swarnkar S/O Vardi Chand Swarnkar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Vs Rahul Kumar Byadwal S/O Meetha Lal Meena

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Vs Kushal Bhardwaj Son of Shri Narender Bhardwaj

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Vs Ankita Jatav, D/O Shri Suresh Kumar Jatav