Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Gopal Singh Chouhan - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 11892 of 2018
Decided On : 24-07-2019
Mahendra Singh Godara, Advocate, Kuldeep Mathur, Advocate
Compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to families who have lost their breadwinner and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - RAJASTHAN COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT RULES, 1996 - RULE 8, 10(3), 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT STAFF SERVICE RULES, 2002 - RULE 30 - DELAY IN APPLICATION - RELAXATION OF RULES - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, a Judicial Assistant in the Rajasthan High Court, died in service in 2010. Petitioner's mother initially applied for compassionate appointment but later withdrew it, requesting that her son be considered for appointment upon attaining majority. The High Court rejected the application due to the petitioner's ineligibility as a minor and the absence of a provision to keep the application pending. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court and later in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (Rules of 1996) and the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (Rules of 2002).
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 and the Rules of 2002. 2. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Rules of 1996 govern compassionate appointments in the Rajasthan High Court. Rule 8 requires applicants to be at least 18 years old at the time of application, and Rule 10(3) sets a 90-day time limit for submitting applications after the government servant's death. 2. The petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment when his mother initially applied because he was a minor. The Rules of 1996 do not provide for keeping applications pending until the dependent reaches the age of majority. 3. The Rules of 1996 do not allow for relaxation of rules, and the Chief Justice's power under Rule 30 of the Rules of 2002 cannot be invoked for compassionate appointments. 4. Compassionate appointments are intended to provide immediate relief to families who have lost their breadwinner and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioner's application was made long after the crisis period, and his claim was not supported by the scheme of compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 and the Rules of 2002.
JUDGMENT
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the decision of the respondent-Rajasthan High Court, in rejecting his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996').
2. The petitioner's father Shri Shyam Singh Chouhan, who was employed on the post of Judicial Assistant in Rajasthan High Court died while in service on 6.1.10. After his death, the petitioner's mother made an application to the respondent, whereby expressing her unwillingness for appointment on compassionate ground submitted that her son who is minor may be accorded appointment on compassionate ground on his attaining the age of majority. Accordingly, she prayed that her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground may be kept pending till his son attains the age of majority.
3. The Registrar (Administration) of the High Court vide communication dated 26.2.10 informed the petitioner's mother that since the petitioner has not attained the age of majority, his candidature cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and the application also cannot be kept pending till he attains the age of majority. The petitioner made further representations, but to no avail. The Registrar (Administration) of the High Court vide yet another communication dated 9.6.16 reiterated the decision of the High Court that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 read with Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 ('the Rules of 2002').
4. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court in declining the appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9411/16, before this Court, which was withdrawn by the petitioner stating that he desires to submit representation to the respondents.
5. The petitioner made a representation on 23.9.16. The High Court vide communication dated 27.10.16 informed the petitioner that his representation has been considered and filed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14300/16, before this Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass speaking order giving detail reason and dealing with the all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his fresh representation.
6. The representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge as aforesaid, stands rejected by the High Court vide communication dated 16.5.18, giving detail reasons for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 read with Rules of 2002. Hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in submitting the application is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as, the petitioner had made the application immediately after attaining the age of majority. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner's mother had made an application to the respondents immediately after the death of petitioner's father praying that the consideration of the application may be kept pending till the petitioner attains the age of majority and thus, viewed from any angle, the application could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. Learned counsel submitted that under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996, the Chief Justice is empowered to issue appropriate order for proper implementation of the provisions of the Rules of 1996. That apart, under the Rules of 2002, the Chief Justice in case of undue hardship is empowered to relax the rules in exceptional cases and thus, without considering the claim of the
