2015 Supreme(Raj) 1809
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.N.Bhandari, J.
Pramlata - Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Education Department & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11901 of 2015.
Decided On : 16-09-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
A second appointment on compassionate grounds is not permissible under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - DEPENDENT - RAJASTHAN COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RULES, 1996 - RULES 2(C), 10(3) - INTERPRETATION OF DEPENDENT - SECOND APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND - NOT PERMISSIBLE - MOTHER NOT A DEPENDENT OF SON.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought compassionate appointment on the death of her son, who was earlier appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband. The respondents denied the appointment, citing Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (Rules of 1996), which defines "dependent" as spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter, etc. The petitioner argued that she should be considered a dependent of her son and be granted compassionate appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment on the death of her son as she did not fall within the definition of "dependent" under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. The court further held that a second appointment on compassionate grounds was not permissible as it would go against the object of the rules and violate Rule 10(3), which provides a limitation period for making an application for appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is a dependent of her son for the purpose of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996? 2. Whether a second appointment on compassionate grounds is permissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "dependent" under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 and held that it includes only spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter, etc., and does not include mother. 2. The court held that a second appointment on compassionate grounds is not permissible as it would go against the object of the rules and violate Rule 10(3), which provides a limitation period for making an application for appointment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - ReportableBy this writ petition a direction is sought for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband Sudesh Kumar Sharma died on 29.10.2001 while in service. An application was made by the petitioner's son for appointment. It was exceeded to as appointment was given to him vide order dated 11.06.2002 being the dependent of deceased employee. The petitioner's son then continued in service for a period of 12 years. He unfortunately died on 21.09.2014. On sudden death of son, the family came in financial crisis as no earning member exists. An application was made for grant of compassionate appointment either against the death of son or the death of erstwhile Government servant Sudesh Kumar Sharma.
3. The respondents have denied the appointment vide order dated 30.07.2015. It is precisely in reference to Rule 2 (c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the "Rules of 1996"). The denial was in ignorance of the fact that no bar for second appointment on compassionate ground exist.
4. A reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Niraj Gurjar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7678/2011 vide judgment dated 12.12.2013 has been given. There the interpretation to the definition of "dependent" was given. The younger brother was taken to be dependent of the erstwhile Government servant by taking liberally interpretation.
5. In the light of the aforesaid, the mother may be taken as dependent on her son and accordingly a direction to be given to the respondents to appoint her on the appropriate post as per the Rules of 1996.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after the death of Mr. Sudesh Kumar Sharma on 29.10.2001, his son was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 11.06.2002. He worked with the respondents for 12 years or so and unfortunately died in an accident.
7. The question for my consideration is as to whether second appointment on the compassionate ground would be permissible. The other issue is as to whether mother can be taken as dependent of the son for grant of compassionate appointment. For consideration of the aforesaid issue, it would be relevant to refer definition of dependent given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 which is quoted thus:
"2(c).- "Dependent" means, a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death."
8. The perusal of the definition reveals as to who would be dependent of the erstwhile Government servant. It can be spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter, unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent upon the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death.
9. In the definition, two conditions exists. One is that the claimant should fall in any of the relations mentioned therein and he/she should be wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. If any of the relations mentioned in the rules was not wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of death, he/she would not be entitled to the compassionate appointment even though he/she falls in one of the relations mentioned in the definition.
10. Thus, both the conditions are required to be satisfied by the claimant for seeking compassionate appointment. If definition intend to include all those who were wholly dependent on the deceased at the time of death then there was no reason to make a mention about specific relations therein. To fall in the definition of
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
