Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 841 (RAJ)

URMILA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-03-22

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, M.N.BHANDARI

body2018
ORDER : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996"). It is on the ground that the married daughter has not been included in the definition of "dependent" given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. 2. Before referring to the issue for challenge to the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, it would be gainful to narrate the facts of this case. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on the death of her mother. The petitioner's father died much before the death of her mother. The writ petition has been filed without showing that petitioner was dependant on the deceased-mother. It is also not stated that her husband is not working elsewhere or doing any job/business thus has no means of livelihood. The application for compassionate appointment has yet been filed. It has already been settled by the Apex Court that compassionate appointment cannot be taken to be means of recruitment. It is in the case of LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 and in Umesh Nagpal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 . The purpose of compassionate appointment has also been specified. It is to give financial support to a family whose only bread-earner dies. 3. In the present case, the deceased-mother alone was in the family. There is no averment in the writ petition that petitioner was dependent on her. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, even if the question of validity of the rule is examined and accepted so as to include married daughter in the definition of "dependent" given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner would not yet be entitled to get compassionate appointment. It is looking to other conditions given in the definition of "dependent". For ready reference, Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is quoted hereunder : "2(c) "Dependent" means a spouse, son, unmarried daughter or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death." 4. The definition of "dependent" provides for category of relation to whom benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended. The definition of "dependent" provides for category of relation to whom benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended. It further provides that such a person should be wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his or her death. It is a pre-condition for seeking compassionate appointment. In absence of pleading or any material to show that petitioner was dependent on the deceased at the time of her death, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to her. 5. In view of the above, challenge to validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 remains academic in nature. It is for the reason that even with the inclusion of words "married daughter" in the definition of "dependent", the petitioner would not be entitled to get compassionate appointment. It has not been shown that she was dependent on the deceased at the time of her death. 6. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to enter into other issues when petitioner could not make out a case for appointment on compassionate basis even if challenge to the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 is accepted. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.