Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 367 (RAJ)

Taramani Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-01

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent-department and he died while in service on 8/8/1983. The petitioner no.2 the son of the petitioner has also expired on 27/8/2008 after filing of this writ petition. 2. After the death of the husband of the petitioner the younger brother of the deceased who his respondent no.3 Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, was given appointment on compassionate ground on consent of the petitioner vide application dated 27/8/1983. 3. The respondent-department has given a notice to the respondent No.3 on 25/2/2006 whereby action was proposed against him under Rule 5 sub-Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred `the Rules of 1996). 4. It is clear from perusal of the notice 25/2/2006 that the respondents department proposed to take action against the respondent no.3 for violating the conditions of maintenance of the dependants of the deceased employee. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent has stated that the challenge to the compassionate appointment is quite belated as the private respondent has already discharged long services since his appointment on 21/2/1984. Admittedly, the petitioner who as widow of the deceased employee can at the best claim maintenance and service benefits accruing out the death of her husband. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is a old lady of about 53 years and is left to maintain herself by the respondent no.3 and does not have any sufficient means of maintaining herself. The condition and plight of the petitioner got more aggravated when she left the home of her deceased husband in the year 2008. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini for the petitioner states that it was a legal obligation upon the respondent no. 3 to at least maintain her or give substantial part of the income from the service as maintenance to her in lieu of compassionate appointment granted to the respondent no.3 on account of death of her husband. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by learned counsel Mr. 3 to at least maintain her or give substantial part of the income from the service as maintenance to her in lieu of compassionate appointment granted to the respondent no.3 on account of death of her husband. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by learned counsel Mr. Anirudh Singh has stated that they have initiated action against the respondent no.3 vide order dated 25/2/2006 which is Annexure R-3 of the writ petition and in fact were willing to take departmental action against him, if he was found guilty under the Rules of 1996. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Ankul Gupta for the respondent no.3 states that since the respondent no.3 has been given compassionate appointment i.e. 21/2/1984 and he is discharging satisfactory services, therefore, his services should be protected. Counsel for the respondent no.3 further states that the widow petitioner voluntarily left her in-law's house in the year 2008 after the death of her son and is residing at her parental house. 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court agrees with the respondent no.3 that no purpose would be served if the appointment of respondent no.3 is brought to end on account of default pertaining to the Rule 5 sub Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996. The Rule 5 sub Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 reads is as follows: "5. Appointment subject to certain conditions.-(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant on the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the order family members who were dependant on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependant family members are being neglected or are 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." 11. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate that the relief should be moulded in such a manner so that the petitioner is able to receive financial support to maintain herself in the old days of life as her husband has expired while in service. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate that the relief should be moulded in such a manner so that the petitioner is able to receive financial support to maintain herself in the old days of life as her husband has expired while in service. 12. This Court in light of the aforesaid discussion deems it appropriate to direct the respondent no.3 to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) to the petitioner widow within a period of three months from today for default of maintenance of the petitioner-widow as per Rule 5 (2) of the Rules of 1996 from 2008 until the date of passing of this judgment. 13. It shall be the obligation upon the respondent no.2 to ensure that such payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs. Five Lac) is made by the respondent no.3 and if need be the deduction/recovery can be made from his emoluments and in other amounts which is at the discretion of the respondent-department for the purpose. 14. The respondent no.3 hereafter shall pay 30% of the total emoluments that he receives on account of the service rendered to the respondent department on every first day of the month to the petitioner for her life time. The respondent department is directed to deposit the amount directly in the petitioner's account from the emoluments due to respondent no.3 to ensure compliance accordingly. 15. The respondent department shall have complete liability of ensuring the compliance of the payment of the compensation as well as regular maintenance granted hereinafter to the petitioner widow strictly as per this order. 16. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.