Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1255 (RAJ)

Miss Manju Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-11

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr.Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioner is that on the demise of her father, Shri Brij Mohan Lal Mathur, who was posted in the State Secretariat, Jaipur, on 6.12.1978, she alongwith her mother and a physically handicapped brother, became dependants of her brother Shri Umesh Mohan Mathur working as Class IV employee with the Directorate of Industry, Department of Industry of the State. The sole bread-earner of the family, Shri Umesh Mohan Mathur also died in harness on 3.7.2001. Situated thus, the petitioner, who is Class VIII pass and otherwise entitled to seek compassionate appointment, applied therefor on 14.8.2001, but was not provided with the same. At that time, petitioner's another brother Shri Hari Mohan Mathur who was alive, expired subsequent thereto on 16.12.2002. 3. According to the petitioner, in terms of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short, hereafter referred to as 1975 Rules'), the expression "Family" was defined in Rule 2(f) as hereunder:- "2. Definitions:- . . . . . . (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) . . .. . . . . (c) . . . . . . . . . (d) . . . . . . . . . (e) . . . . . .. . . (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 the Deptt. of Personnel." 4. The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, hereafter referred to as 1996 Rules') however, repealed the earlier Rules. The 1996 Rules defined the expression "Dependant" in Rule 2(C) thereof as hereunder:- "2. Definitions.- . . . . . . (a) . . . . . . . . of Personnel." 4. The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, hereafter referred to as 1996 Rules') however, repealed the earlier Rules. The 1996 Rules defined the expression "Dependant" in Rule 2(C) thereof as hereunder:- "2. Definitions.- . . . . . . (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) . . .. . . . . . (c) "Dependant" means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death." 5. As a consequence, in terms of the 1996 Rules, the sister or brother of the deceased is not construed to be his dependant to claim compassionate appointment. The petitioner has thus, approached this Court challenging the validity of Rule 2(c) of the 1996 Rules for such omission and has also sought an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide her with the compassionate appointment thereunder. 6. The respondents, in reply, have in essence, pleaded that in terms of the 1996 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. According to them, Rule 2(c) of the 1996 Rules, having regard to the concept of compassionate appointment and the purpose thereof, does not suffer from any vice and therefore, challenge thereto is wholly misconceived. 7. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the 1996 Rules takes away a valuable right of a dependant of a deceased Government servant to claim compassionate appointment, and that therefore, the reliefs as prayed for ought to be granted, the learned State Counsel has adhered to the pleaded stand of the respondents. 8. We have duly considered the pleaded averments, the documents on record and the arguments advanced. 9. As it is, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also, in law, not an assured or acknowledged mode of recruitment to public service and is strictly governed by norms and/or statutory rules framed, if any, to regulate the same. 9. As it is, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also, in law, not an assured or acknowledged mode of recruitment to public service and is strictly governed by norms and/or statutory rules framed, if any, to regulate the same. On a plain comparison of the definition of the expressions "Family" and "Dependant" as provided by the 1975 Rules and the 1996 Rules respectively, it is patent that though under the proviso to Rule 2(f) of the 1975 Rules, subject to the eventualities as mentioned therein, any other close relative of the deceased Government servant apart from the living spouse and the children, could be extended the benefit of consideration for compassionate appointment, such relaxation has been withdrawn under the 1996 Rules. 10. As compassionate appointment, to reiterate, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is essentially contemplated to enable a family in distress to tide over the immediate financial crisis, resultant from the death of its sole bread-earner, it stands to logic to limit the benefit thereof to the living spouse and his/her children. The impugnment of the validity of Rule 2(c) of the 1996 Rules, in our estimate, does not stand scrutiny on the touch stone of acknowledged grounds of assailment of any instrument of legislation. The plea to this effect therefore, fails. The 1975 Rules having been repealed by the 1996 Rules as is evident from Rule 15 thereof and the petitioner having applied for compassionate appointment admittedly after the latter Rules had been enforced, we see no cogent reason to direct consideration of her case in view of the above state of law. Rule 14 of the 1996 Rules reserves the power in the State Government to remove any difficulty in the implementation of any provision of the 1996 Rules, if it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of fair dealing or in public interest. It is apparent therefrom that the State is the sole judge to discern any such difficulty, which is the condition precedent for invocation of its powers under this provision of the Rules. We do not feel inclined in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the exercise of our power of judicial review to issue a direction in this regard. 11. We do not feel inclined in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the exercise of our power of judicial review to issue a direction in this regard. 11. In any view of the matter, having regard to the fact that meanwhile, more than a decade has passed, no judicial intervention at this point of time is considered to be warranted. 12. The petition thus stands rejected.Petition dismissed. *******