Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 91 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State

2025-01-13

ARUN MONGA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Under challenge here is an order dated 13.04.2017 (Annex.18), by which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, was rejected on the ground of concealment of the pendency of a third criminal case, apart from two which were disclosed. 2. Relevant facts first. The petitioner's father, Sh. Daulat Ram, was employed as a Class Fourth employee in the respondent department and posted at Central Jail, Udaipur and died in harness on 06.02.2002. The petitioner's mother submitted a representation stating that the petitioner was still a minor, had recently passed the 10th exam, and due to her poor health and illiteracy, she was unable to apply on compassionate basis heself. Therefore, she requested that the petitioner be considered for the appointment on attaining majority. 2.1. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 23.10.2005 and submitted an application on 27.12.2005, along with the necessary documents for compassionate appointment. However, on 02.03.2006, the respondent department informed the petitioner's mother that, since there was no provision to keep the application pending until the petitioner became major, and she had not applied for herself, the petitioner's application was rejected. 2.2. Following this, on 12.03.2006, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister of the Home Department, requesting the reconsideration of the order dated 02.03.2006 and that the department had the authority to relax the rules. 2.3. Subsequently, the respondent department issued a letter on 29.04.2014 asking the petitioner to submit an application for compassionate appointment, along with a Police Character Verification, No Objection Affidavit from family members, and other relevant documents. 2.4. An FIR (No. 101/2012) was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Suraj Pole, Udaipur, for offenses under Section 341 and 323 IPC. The petitioner was exonerated by the competent court after the matter was compromised on 12.04.2012. 2.5. On 18.02.2015, the respondent department issued a letter stating that the petitioner had not disclosed complete details of the criminal cases against him. In response, the petitioner clarified that the details provided were based on a certificate from the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, which only mentioned Case Nos. 168/07 (under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326/149, 308/149 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act)and Case No. 213/11 (under Section307 and 34 IPC & 4/25 of Arms Act), respectively. 2.6. In response, the petitioner clarified that the details provided were based on a certificate from the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, which only mentioned Case Nos. 168/07 (under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326/149, 308/149 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act)and Case No. 213/11 (under Section307 and 34 IPC & 4/25 of Arms Act), respectively. 2.6. However, on 13.04.2016, the respondent department passed an order stating that, due to three criminal cases against the petitioner—two of which were serious offenses under the Arms Act he was deemed ineligible for compassionate appointment. Hence this petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the mere registration of cases does not render him permanently ineligible, especially since he was exonerated in the criminal proceedings. 5. I am unable to persuade myself with the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a settled position that equitable relief can only be granted to those who approach the Court with clean hands. The conceded position here is that the petitioner knowingly concealed the pendency of the third criminal case against him, despite being aware that an FIR had been registered under Section 323 read with Section 341 of the IPC. 6. Moreover, the unequivocal stand taken by the respondents in their reply in preliminary objection, being apposite, is reproduced hereinbelow: “I. That at the threshold, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various authoritative pronouncements has observed time and again that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. This is because, as a rule, appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and neither other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in all cases of public appointment/s, there are certain exceptions carried out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One of such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. One of such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gain employment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee who may be eligible for such employment. So, the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It is further laid down in the cases of Umesh Chandra Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 and S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 9 SCC 485 that mere death of an employee is not sufficient to entitle the dependent of the family compassionate appointment. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family, and it is only when it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that it must be remembered that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families, which are equally, if not more destitute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also indicated that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period if that be so, it must be specified in the rules and the object being to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis which it faces because of the sudden death of the sole bread-earner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after long lapse of time more so, when the crisis is over, it is because, the consideration of such employment is not the vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further made it clear that "Compassionate appointments to be in consonance with rules" and cannot be made de hors the rules. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further made it clear that "Compassionate appointments to be in consonance with rules" and cannot be made de hors the rules. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shashank Goswami and another, AIR 2012 SC 2294 observed as follows:- "Compassionate appointment can't be claimed as of right. It is not another source of recruitment. The claim for such appointment has to be considered in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions, taking into consideration financial conditions of the family of the deceased." The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Government wherein it rejected the claim for compassionate appointment when the total retirement benefits and the pension taken together went beyond the ceiling fixed by the Government in the scheme for compassionate appointment. It is a recognized norm that the latest precedence overrules the old ones and accordingly must be followed in all cases. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, decided on 07.08.2013, observed that every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right/It is an exception carved out in order to remove the financial constraints of the bereave family, which has lost its bread-earner. Death of Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment and the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee has to be examined. II. That if the case of the petitioner is considered in the light of the above-said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then he is not at all entitled to get compassionate appointment firstly, because such an appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is not a vested right and secondly, criminal cases under serious offences were registered against him, which fact in itself is sufficient to refuse to grant compassionate appointment to him and same has rightly been denied to him.” 7. I am in agreement with the aforesaid stand, both on facts and in law, as adopted by the respondents, and I see no reason why the petition should not be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, it is so ordered. 9. I am in agreement with the aforesaid stand, both on facts and in law, as adopted by the respondents, and I see no reason why the petition should not be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, it is so ordered. 9. In parting, I may hasten to add that it appears the petitioner has indulged in a multiplicity of litigation. The earlier writ petition filed by his mother was dismissed, as stated in paragraph 10 of the reply, and that dismissal attained finality. No explanation has been provided in the writ petition as to why this subsequent petition has been filed. Although a feeble attempt was made by the petitioner to rely on some newspaper cuttings, as stated in paragraph 11 of the petition, they have no significance. 10. The petition is dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches, and merit, in view of the discussion hereinabove. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.