Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1188 (RAJ)

Roshan Aara* v. State of Rajasthan

2000-09-20

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, RAJESH BALIA

body2000
Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.L. jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. G.L. Khatri. (2). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.5.98 passed in SBCW Pet. No. 1543/98. The appellant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased Govt, employee, preferred the said writ petition to quash Anx. 10 dated 21.1.98 and the direct the respondents to provide suitable appointment to appellant No. 2 on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependats of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996). The 2nd appellant, for whom the compassionate appointment was sought, is the sisters son of the widow of the deceased, namely the 1st appellant. Vide communication dated 21.1.98 respondent No. 3 had informed the appellant that in view of the Rules of 1996, appellant No. 2 cannot be given appointment as he is not dependent, within the meaning of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. In our opinion, the reasoning given by the respondent to reject the application for compassionate appointment on that ground is not correct. (3). In the instant case, the application was made on 22.02.1994 when the The Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 alone will have application to the case on hand. Rule 2 of the 1975 Rules, which deals with the definition of Family, reads thus: ``2 (f)-``Family means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wife or husband sons and unmarried or ``widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant, who were dependant on the deceased Government servant; Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of Deptt. of Personnel. (4). of Personnel. (4). The proviso shows that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting the benefit under the 1975 Rule, the benefit available under these Rules be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow of the Guardian of the children of the deceased, with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel. (5). Thus, close relative of the deceased only can be nominated or named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased. (6). In this case, appellant No. 2 Mohd. Yunus, in not the close relative of the deceased Government servant but is a relative of the widow of the deceased Government servant on her paternal side. (7). In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar and another (1). the Supreme Court has held that the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general Rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee ant that the very object of appointment of dependant of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh (2) the Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions is to give succour to he family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependants on account of untimely demise of its sole earning member. In State of Haryana and others vs. Rani Devi and another (3), the Supreme Court held that the claim for compassionate appointment is based on the ground that the claimant was a dependant of the deceased employee. In that case the Supreme Court also held that the benefit of appointment is extended to one of the dependants of the deceased employee and that the expression `employee does not conceive casual or purely adhoc employee on those who are working as apprentices. In that case the Supreme Court also held that the benefit of appointment is extended to one of the dependants of the deceased employee and that the expression `employee does not conceive casual or purely adhoc employee on those who are working as apprentices. In State of U.P. and others vs. Paras Nath (4), the Supreme Court held that the compassionate appointment is permissible only when there are Rules providing for such appointment and the purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment and none of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in that case. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court was not right in granting any relief to the respondents. (4). It is clear from the Rules of 1995 that the benefit which is available under these Rules can be extended only to close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or by guardian. In the instant case, the 2nd appellant is the relative of the widow, on her paternal side and, therefore, cannot at all be treated as the close relative of the deceased. Under the Rules, the benefit specifically is assigned only to the members of the deceased family or his close relatives. Since the 2nd appellant is not a close relative of the deceased, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the appellant on her claim for compassionate appointment. (5). The appeal fails and is dismissed.