Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 291 (RAJ)

Laxmi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-25

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue family pension to the petitioner forthwith; b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to benefits of Gratuity, Leave Encashment, State Insurance and GPG to the petitioner; c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may also be directed to grant interests at the rate of 12% per annum over the delayed payment of family pension and other retiral benefits; d) the respondents may kindly be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on Class IV employee on compassionate ground; e) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; f) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to the proposition. However, the only objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner (wife of the deceased government servant) earlier had recommended the name of her stepson for compassionate appointment, which she later on withdrew, before such appointment could be given. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. This Court, at the outset, observes that a notification dated 28.10.2021 came to be issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, notifying the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules, 2021. The said notification reflects amendment in Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996; the said amended Rule 2 reads as follows: "2. The said notification reflects amendment in Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996; the said amended Rule 2 reads as follows: "2. Amendment of rule 2.- the existing clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules 1966 shall be substituted by the following, namely :- (c) ’Dependent’ means,- (i) Spouse, or (ii) son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iv) married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or (v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death." 6. On a perusal of the aforequoted amended Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996, this Court finds that the word ’Spouse’ in the said Rule (pertaining to the meaning of the term ’Dependent’), has been used in the first place and is followed by the word ’or’, which makes it clear, in unambiguous and unequivocal terms, that the legally wedded Spouse of the deceased government servant will have a preferential claim, pertaining to compassionate appointment, over the other family members of the deceased government servant; thus, in case the wife of the deceased government servant is alive and claims such preferential right of hers, the claim of others, if any, in that regard, would not be worthy of acceptance. 7. 7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, when seen in juxtaposition with the aforequoted amended Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996, coupled with the undisputed and admitted fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife (spouse) of the deceased government servant, this Court is of the firm opinion that the claim of the petitioner (wife) for compassionate appointment, is a lawful and legitimate claim, and the same is notwithstanding the recommendation earlier made by her for grant of such appointment to the stepson, more particularly, when, prior to grant of such appointment to the stepson, the petitioner (wife) withdrew such recommendation of hers; and thus, the denial of such a lawful claim and entitlement of the wife (spouse) is unsustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to the legislative intent behind the amended Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996, as also on the ground of such denial being violative of the settled position of law. 7.1 Furthermore, the factual backdrop of this case, when considered in conjunction with the Rule position, the earlier recommendation for compassionate appointment of the stepson, as made by the petitioner, cannot be harped upon, on any count whatsoever, so as to disentitle the petitioner (wife) of her lawful claim, for such appointment. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, to the extent as indicated above. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment prospectively and other retiral benefits (accruing out of the services rendered by the deceased government servant) to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioner shall approach this Court again, in case need arises. All pending applications stand disposed of.