Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 336 (RAJ)

Shaku v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-30

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: 'a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 (Annex8) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be granted compassionate appointment without insisting on consent of sons with all consequential benefits. b) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner. c) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner's husband Late Shri Om Prakash was employed as a Safai Karamchari with the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur; the petitioner is the second wife of Late Shri Om Prakash as his first wife Smt. Shanu was expired on 05.07.1997. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage certificate of the petitioner dated 20.09.1998 is on record. Learned counsel also submits that though there might be some dispute between children of the first wife and the present wife (the petitioner), but the Rule position is very clear and as per Rule 10 of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'), the surviving spouse has got the priority. 2.1 Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996, reads as follows: '10. Procedure- (1) On the death of a government servant the surviving spouse shall apply for appointment for self or for any other dependent. (2) Where the deceased Govt. servant is not survived by a spouse the application shall be made by one of the dependent of the deceased govt. servant and other dependents shall have to give their consent for his/her candidature. Provided that if more than one of the dependents seek employment, the head of department shall select one, keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the entire family, particularly the minor members.' 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to refute the Rule position, but at the same time, submits that the delay was on count of the children of first wife disputing the application for compassionate appointment of the present petitioner and also certain confusion regarding the date of the death of the first wife. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to refute the Rule position, but at the same time, submits that the delay was on count of the children of first wife disputing the application for compassionate appointment of the present petitioner and also certain confusion regarding the date of the death of the first wife. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court does not find any reason why the compassionate appointment can be denied to the present petitioner, who admittedly is the spouse of the deceased employee and has a valid marriage certificate as well as death certificate of the earlier wife. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on appropriate post within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. All appointment benefits shall operate prospectively. All pending applications stand disposed of.