Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 102 (RAJ)

Manju v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-09

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under : "I. The respondents may kindly be directed to grant the compassionate appointment tot eh petitioner No.1; and/or II. In alternative, respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners keeping in view that the married sister can also be granted compassionate appointment, in case of nonavailability of any competent person to look after the dependents; and III. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and the petitioners may kindly be passed." 2. The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that Late Shri Pukhraj was serving in Public Works Department, who died while in service. On death of Late Shri Pukhraj, his son (brother of petitioner No.1) Mahesh Kumar was given appointment on compassionate ground under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'). 3. Unfortunately, Mahesh Kumar, who was a bachelor, also passed away on 03.08.2016. 4. Such being the position, petitioner No.2 -Tipu Devi moved applications before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Phalodi, Jodhpur on 15.09.2016 and on 02.01.2018 and requested that her daughter petitioner No.1 (Manju) be accorded appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996. 5. The respondents have not decided petitioner's request for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. After arguing for some time and considering the fact that no final order has yet been passed by the respondents on petitioners' application for appointment under the Rules of 1996, Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider petitioners' representation/request for affording appointment in place of Mahesh Kumar, who has passed away on 03.08.2016. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners' request/representation for appointment under the Rules of 1996 in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks of placing of certified copy of the order instant. 8. In case the respondents are of the view that no appointment can be granted to the petitioner No.1 pursuant to the request made by representation, they shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner(s). 9. 8. In case the respondents are of the view that no appointment can be granted to the petitioner No.1 pursuant to the request made by representation, they shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner(s). 9. It is, however, made clear that the direction to decide petitioners' representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of their grievance and the same may not be construed to be a direction to decide it in a particular manner. 10. The stay application is also dismissed.