SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Raj) 516

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas, JJ.
Kumari Saraswati - Appellant
Versus
Hon Ble High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Registrar General Jodhpur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 9975 of 2016
Decided On : 14-08-2020

The definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, does not include the sister of the deceased government servant and is not ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - RAJASTHAN COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RULES, 1996 - RULE 2(C) - DEFINITION OF 'DEPENDENT' - VALIDITY - APPOINTMENT OF SISTER ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND - NOT PERMISSIBLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the unmarried sister of a deceased government servant, sought appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (the Rules). The High Court rejected her application, holding that she was not covered within the definition of 'dependent' under the Rules. The petitioner challenged the order of the High Court and the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rules and dismissed the petition. It held that the petitioner, being the sister of the deceased government servant, was not covered within the definition of 'dependent' under the Rules and was therefore not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, being the sister of the deceased government servant, was covered within the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules and was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds? 2. Whether Rule 2(c) of the Rules was ultra vires the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules was clear and unambiguous and did not include the sister of the deceased government servant. It further held that the petitioner had failed to show that she was wholly dependent on her deceased brother at the time of his death. 2. The Court held that Rule 2(c) of the Rules was not ultra vires the Constitution of India. It relied on its earlier decisions in Hari Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Smt. Jamna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in which it had upheld the validity of the Rule.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this writ petition, while questioning the legality of order dated 21.9.10 & 4.4.18 issued by the respondent-Rajasthan High Court denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules").

2. The facts relevant are that petitioner's brother Shri Kantilal, who was employed as Junior Judicial Assistant in the Rajasthan High Court died while in service on 28.6.10, who was unmarried at the time of his death. The petitioner herein, unmarried sister of Shri Kantilal made an application to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner claimed that her deceased brother was taking care of the entire family and therefore, being dependent on his deceased brother, she is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. The application made stands rejected by the High Court on the ground that the petitioner is not covered within the definition of 'dependent' under the Rules. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents have erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner in cursory manner without application of mind. The compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadwinner and therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the application preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground keeping in view the spirit of the scheme underlying the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules which does not include brother and sister of the deceased Government servant as dependent is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that though petitioner's yet another brother Shri Ramswaroop Pandit is working as LDC in the District Court at Sirohi but he is living separately since long and therefore, there is none in the family to take care of surviving dependents of deceased Kantilal. Learned counsel submitted that a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to amend the Rules appropriately so as to include brother and sister in the definition of 'dependent' in case of an unmarried Government servant. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor & Anr.vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.B.C.Writ Petition No.7797/14), decided on 11.10.17.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules and therefore, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned AAG submitted that the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules has already been upheld by a Bench of this Court in the matter of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Jamna Devi (D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.569/19), decided on 17.9.19 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

6. Indubitably, compassionate appointment of dependents of Deceased Government Servant, who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State on permanent basis or holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis including period of probation as probationer trainee, is governed by the provisions of the Rules of 1996. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 defines 'dependent' thus:

"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 Governmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top