Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 264 (RAJ)

Tarun Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2021-02-02

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for seeking compassionate appointment and challenged the order dated 9.1.2017 whereby his candidature was rejected by the authority on the ground that at the time of death of his father, his unmarried daughter was in government service. It is submitted that the petitioner's father died while in service and was holding the post of Land Revenue Inspector. At the time of death, one of the daughter who was unmarried was admittedly in service but she got married within one month of death of her father. Application was moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected on the aforesaid grounds. 2. Learned counsel has invited attention to the notification dated 8.4.2015 whereby Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1996") was amended and expression at the time of death of the Govt. servant was substituted by the expression at the time of death of Govt. servant or at the time of appointment of the dependent. Thus, from above learned counsel submits that the question whether there is any other dependent in government service shall be examined on the date when the offer of appointment is being given to the dependent. Admittedly in 2017, the married daughter would not come within the category of dependent for the purpose of Rules of 1996 and the petitioner was therefore entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State however submits that the order of 09.01.2017 is clear and is in unequivocal terms rejects the candidature that on the day when death occurred, there was unmarried daughter dependent on him, who was in government service. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. Petitioner was to be considered as a dependent of the deceased Government servant who expired on 14.05.2015 and amendment in Rule 5 of Rules 1996 had already come into force w.e.f. 08.04.2015, thus the expression of Rule 5 stood amended. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. Petitioner was to be considered as a dependent of the deceased Government servant who expired on 14.05.2015 and amendment in Rule 5 of Rules 1996 had already come into force w.e.f. 08.04.2015, thus the expression of Rule 5 stood amended. The amended Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under:- "In Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, for the existing expression "at the time of death of the Government servant", the expression "at the time of death of the Government servant" or at the time of appointment of the dependent" shall be substituted." 6. Perusal of above, it is apparent that the Rule making authority clearly made that benefit is otherwise available to the dependent should not be taken away merely because of any dependent who has already in government service but is no more dependent amongst the family members. On an interpretation as drawn above, it is apparent that the petitioner was sole dependent along with his mother and two sons. All the four daughters including the unmarried daughter stood already married and would not be an embargo in terms of Rule 5 of Rule of 1996 for giving appointment to the dependent. At the time of appointment of dependent the married daughters cannot be said to be considered for the purpose of denying such appointment. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and grant the same if he is otherwise found eligible. Age relaxation in this regard may also be given due to pendency of the case. The exercise shall be conducted within a period of two months. 8. All pending applications stands disposed of.