Miss Garima Pareek Daughter of Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Daughter of Late Smt. Madhubala Pareek Vs Pradhanacharya, Rajkiye Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya

[2026:RJ-JP:24225]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2604/2021 URN: CW / 6025U / 2021

Miss Garima Pareek Daughter Of Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Daughter Of Late Smt. Madhubala Pareek, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of 4799, Kundigar Bhairu Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur-302003. (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pradhanacharya, Rajkiye Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Telipada, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

Zila Shiksha Adhikari (Madhyamik), Jaipur Pratham, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

The Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig with Mr. Govind Gupta

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶14

Order

¶15

01/07/2026

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming the appointment on compassionate ground after the death of her mother (deceased Government servant).

¶17

As per the facts on record, Smt. Madhubala Pareek, who was the Government servant, died while she was in service on 15.08.1999. At the time of her death, her husband namely Ghanshyam Pareek was already in Government Job on the post of LDC.

[2026:RJ-JP:24225]

[CW-2604/2021]

(2 of 3)

Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’) says that the dependents of the Government servant, who died while in service, may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that the employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the dependents of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis.

¶22

Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is quoted as under:“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 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.”

¶23

Provided that this condition

¶24

shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.

¶25

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionated 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

[2026:RJ-JP:24225]

[CW-2604/2021]

(3 of 3)

neglected or are not being 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

Admittedly, the husband of the deceased Government servant was in Government employment on the regular basis on the Post of LDC at the time when the deceased Government Servant died.

¶31

In view of the specific provisions provided under the Rule 5 of the Rules 1996, the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground is not sustainable.

¶32

Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶34

57/ARTI SHARMA

Miss Garima Pareek Daughter of Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Daughter of Late Smt. Madhubala Pareek v. Pradhanacharya, Rajkiye Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Garima Pareek Daughter of Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Daughter of Late Smt. Madhubala Pareek v. Pradhanacharya, Rajkiye Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chand Sharma S/O Shri Shrichand Sharma Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Gajraj Singh Vs the Chairman and Managing Dire

Yashpal Singh Vs State and Anr.

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuraj Singh S/O Shri Nihal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad S/O Shri Chhito Singh Vs State of Rajasthan