Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1749 (RAJ)

Kailash Dan v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-02

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Naib Tehsildar with all consequential benefits with effect from the date he was appointed on the post of Patwari on compassionate ground. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Premdan Charan, holding the post of Land Revenue Inspector in the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, died while in service on 27.6.91. The petitioner holding the qualification of M.A., applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (for short "the Act of 1975" hereinafter). 3. After due consideration, vide order dated 27.8.92 issued by the District Collector, Jalore, the petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of Patwari. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined the duties. Later, he was confirmed on the post of Patwari w.e.f. 31.8.94 vide order dated 1.5.95. 4. After lapse of about more than 20 years, the petitioner has filed present petition raising a grievance that in commensurate with his academic qualification, he was entitled to be appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner while giving the details of some of the persons appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildar on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1975, has claimed that while maintaining parity, the respondents were under an obligation to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsildar. 5. Reiterating the stand taken in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsildar, is avowedly arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents were under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in conformity with the Rules of 1975 fairly and thus, their action in according appointment to the petitioner on the post of Patwari instead of Naib Tehsildar, falls foul of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is to be noticed that the Rules of 1975 were framed so as to extend an immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased government servant, who has died in harness. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is to be noticed that the Rules of 1975 were framed so as to extend an immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased government servant, who has died in harness. The appointment on compassionate ground an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment rules governing the public employment to meet particular contingency cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 8. In the matter of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994(4)SCC 138, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is future, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family." The Hon'ble Court further observed "the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." In the matter of 'State of Rajasthan v. Shri Umrao Singh,' (1994) 6 SCC 560 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after acceptance of appointment on a particular post, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground shall stand consummated, otherwise it would be a case of "endless compassion". Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali' MANU/SC/0732/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 448 . 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali' MANU/SC/0732/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 448 . 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner accepted the appointment accorded to him on the post of Patwari as aforesaid without protest and therefore, his right to claim appointment under the Rules of 1975 stands consummated and he cannot be permitted to claim consideration afresh for appointment on higher post. Moreover, the crisis period of the family of the deceased government servant is already over and therefore, at this stage, any indulgence to the petitioner for appointment on higher post on compassionate ground shall be against the object and spirit of the provisions of the Rules of 1975. 10. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.