JUDGMENT 1. This is a writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2508/2000 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against the order dated 04.07.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The question therefore that arises for consideration In the present appeal is whether single Judge was justified In dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and if so, whether grounds which were made basis for dismissal are legally and factually sustainable. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are Inclined to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as a consequence, find no merit in this appeal.The facts of the case are these; 4. Smt. Mariamma was in employment of the State. She was working as Multi purpose worker. She died on 11.05.1993 while In service. Appellant claiming to be her son applied for compassionate appointment in the State service consequent upon death of his mother. His request was acceded to and accordingly, he was given compassionate appointment on 16.08.1994 by the State. He then joined pursuant to the appointment and since then he is working as a State employee. 5. In the year 2000, the appellant filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises and claimed family pension as a son of Late Smt. Marlamma. He placed reliance upon the rules applicable for grant of family pension. The learned Single Judge declined to grant relief by passing the impugned order which has given rise to filing of writ appeal by the petitioner. 6. This is what learned Single Judge held while passing the impugned order : "The grievance of the petitioner is only to the extent that the petitioner was entitled for the family pension as he was minor on the date of death of his mother and under the Rules, it is provided that a minor is entitled for the family pension. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has filed the writ petition by suppressing fact that he was given employment on compassionatory ground. It is also submitted that the petitioner's writ petition is based on Rule 62 of the Rules of 1951, which is not applicable. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has filed the writ petition by suppressing fact that he was given employment on compassionatory ground. It is also submitted that the petitioner's writ petition is based on Rule 62 of the Rules of 1951, which is not applicable. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given employment after the death of his mother and petitioner has not disclosed this fact In the writ petition, which obviously with intention to get undue favour from the Court otherwise there was no reason for not disclosing this important tact. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed." 7. We are inclined to concur with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition. In fact, it does not call for any interference in our appellate jurisdiction for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts in the writ petition by the writ petitioner (appellant herein), secondly, In the entire writ petition, the writ petitioner did not disclose the fact that he secured compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of his mother and also joined the services thereby became State employee. Thirdly, this fact being a material one and had a bearing for determining the claim of the appellant for quantifying pension, non-disclosure was rightly taken as a vital issue for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant was very vehement in his submission on this issue. According to him, firstly, it was not necessary for the appellant i.e. writ petitioner to have disclosed this fact. He urged that since this fact i.e. appellants employment was already in the knowledge of the State there was no occasion to disclose. He also urged that whether this fact was disclosed or not, atleast the appellant was entitled to get pension from the date of death of his mother till the date he got the job in State employment. He placed reliance upon decision reported in CDR 2005 Vol. 1 816, Superintending Engineer (O& M) & Anr. v. Akhilesh Kumar & Anr. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission on the facts of this case. He placed reliance upon decision reported in CDR 2005 Vol. 1 816, Superintending Engineer (O& M) & Anr. v. Akhilesh Kumar & Anr. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission on the facts of this case. It is a trite principle of law that a litigant must come to the Court with cleanest hands for securing relief in equitable jurisdiction. A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in extraordinary equitable jurisdiction and it must be invoked by a person by placing all facts material for deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition. Atleast he must disclose all those facts which are within his knowledge and which have bearing either directly or indirectly on the relief claimed in the writ petition. Petitioner is not expected to waft for the respondent to come and aver those facts which are otherwise in the knowledge of the writ petitioner but not disclosed. He cannot rely upon the stand of the respondent and it is the duty of the writ petitioner to allege all those material facts which are in his knowledge and which have a bearing for granting him relief. It is then for the Court to decide as to whether he is entitled to get relief on the facts so mentioned or not? 9. Suppression of material fact is one of the material fact which entitles the Court to decline to entertain the writ petition. A litigant cannot play mischief with the Court by only narrating the facts which he claims are material for him. Such attitude of a litigant can never be countenanced nor encouraged. 10. Coming now to the facts of the case, the fact that writ petitioner had got compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of his mother was undoubtedly most material and relevant fact. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it had a bearing on his right to claim family pension. It is for the reason that the moment writ petitioner got appointment, he was not entitled to claim family pension as per Rules. 11. Accordingly and in the light of the aforesaid discussion. We are of the considered view that suppression of material fact on the part of the writ petition was a material one and therefore, learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon this material fact for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. 11. Accordingly and in the light of the aforesaid discussion. We are of the considered view that suppression of material fact on the part of the writ petition was a material one and therefore, learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon this material fact for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******