Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1285 (RAJ)

Deepak Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2023
ORDER : I.A. No. 01 of 2021: 1. The application seeking early listing of the matter has been rendered infructuous. 2. Dismissed accordingly. I.A. No. 01 of 2023: Considering that the matter relates to compassionate appointment, the application is allowed and the matter is taken up for consideration today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14551 of 2019: The instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, whereby petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) has been turned down. 2.1 The facts necessary for the present purposes are that petitioner's father Vishwajeet Singh was working as Gangman in respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur; after a prolonged illness, he passed away on 07.10.2017. 3. Owing to ill health of said Vishwajeet Singh, petitioner's mother Mithilesh Kumari Chouhan who was working as Teacher Grade III Level I and was attending her husband was constrained to apply for voluntary retirement. 4. The application dated 05.07.2017 filed by petitioner's mother came to be accepted by the District Education Officer, Jalore by order dated 29.11.2017 and petitioner's mother was superannuated w.e.f. 01.12.2017. 5. On 11.12.2017, the petitioner proceeded to move application for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996. While submitting the application dated 11.12.2017, the petitioner sought appointment on the post of Sanitary Inspector. 6. The application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 26.07.2019 citing that on the date of death of the Government Servant (i.e. 07.10.2017), petitioner's mother (Mithilesh Kumari) was in government service and that she retired on 01.12.2017. 7. According to the respondents, since on the date of death of petitioner's father, his mother was in government service and was working as Teacher Grade III, petitioner was ineligible for appointment in the face of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. 8. 7. According to the respondents, since on the date of death of petitioner's father, his mother was in government service and was working as Teacher Grade III, petitioner was ineligible for appointment in the face of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 had undergone amendment by way of notification dated 08.04.2015 and the expression 'at the time of death of Government servant' had been substituted by the expression “at the time of death of the Government servant or at the time of appointment of the dependent” and therefore, the fact that on the date of death of petitioner's father, his mother was in service is not a disqualification. 9. He argued that since at the relevant date, namely, the date of application (11.12.2017), petitioner's mother having taken voluntary retirement was not in government service, the respondents could not have rejected petitioner's application. 10. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16912/2017, decided on 02.02.2021) and submitted that though in a slightly different factual context, this Court has held that since Rule 5 stood amended w.e.f. 08.04.2015, the dependent of deceased government servant is entitled to be given appointment under the Rules of 1996 if on the date of application, family members or other dependents of the deceased government servant ceased to remain in government service or have ceased to continue as a dependent. 11. Mr. Achraj Singh Saluja, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was not in a position to controvert the above factual and legal position. 12. He however submitted that the petitioner cannot claim appointment on the post of sanitary inspector, which is a Grade II post. He submitted that the petitioner can be appointed only on Grade III posts under the Rules of 1996. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. It is noteworthy that before the death of the government servant (on 07.10.2017), petitioner's mother-Mithilesh Kumari had applied for voluntary retirement which came to be accepted on 29.11.2017. The petitioner has moved the application for appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 11.12.2017. 15. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. It is noteworthy that before the death of the government servant (on 07.10.2017), petitioner's mother-Mithilesh Kumari had applied for voluntary retirement which came to be accepted on 29.11.2017. The petitioner has moved the application for appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 11.12.2017. 15. True it is, that on the date of death of the government servant, petitioner's mother- Mithilesh Kumari was in government service but when the petitioner moved the application for compassionate appointment, his mother had retired (w.e.f. 01.12.2017). 16. In view of the amended provision of Rule 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that since on the relevant date i.e. at the time of submitting the application by the petitioner, his mother was not in government service, condition mentioned in Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1996 does not pose any hurdle in petitioner's way of seeking appointment. 17. Since Rule making Authority has amended Rule 5 in order to make the date of appointment of the dependent a relevant date for considering right to compassionate appointment, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation is clearly contrary to law. 18. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 26.07.2019 is hereby quashed. 19. The respondent-Nigam is directed to give appointment to the petitioner in terms of Rules of 1996, obviously in Grade III post. 20. Needful be done within a period of three months from today. 21. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. 22. All interlocutory applications including I.A. Nos. 01/2021 and 01/2023 are disposed of.